Lately, I've purchased a new game named City Life. If you didn't hear about this game, it's just like a clone of Sim City, but instead of focusing on the city as an administrator, you focus on the city as a humanitarian and must agence everything so the six types of people who can come to your city coexist in peace.

However, what I have to say about this game doesn't really turn around gameplay... Which is a shame, because it does look interesting and quite original, and the game run quite smoothly when it does run... No, what I have to say about this is, unfortunatly, what doesn't work in the game... Namely, those incredible brains behind the creation of the game didn't think valid or usefull to code the game so it would be possible for a Windows user to be able to tab back to the desktop without crashing the game, or that it would not be important to see that the game is able to run without interferences from the most popular apps (free or not) available on the web those days. In my case, Zone Alarm... (which is a fricking firewall, if you by any chance didn't know what it is... And one of the most, if not the most, popular free firewall around.)

Worse than that, even though it's quite bad already, when I got to the official site forum to try to get a fix to the problem I had which completely stopped me from playing the game, I got a kind of "lecture" on how about the games were all tested on "vanilla" computers (which basically mean stripped down as much as possible of any kind of content everybody else use those days), that the guy who was answering back to me had about 20 years of playtester and game developper under his belt (like I care? I'm there to get a fix on a problem which stop me from playing the game!) and that it's very standard to assume that all (and I really mean all from what he was saying) gamers just turn their internet down along with all their apps when playing games. Any game.

I just can't stop thinking that I should even be insulted to have such a stupid answer served back to me, but then reality settle in... And I just can't pretend here, I'm not really surprised about all this. Not that I think that it's alright or even should happen in PC gaming to have developpers to even think that way... But y'know, I've been so disapointed by several points in PC gaming in those past few years that nothing much surprise me anymore. All I seem to get is a very bland taste in my mouth, memories of the golden age of PC gaming (which seem to have been around the 90's and never got back) and a fatality settling more and more in front of me: I must now be too old to continue to walk the path of the gamer.

Yeah... Too old... Why else would I just then say "screw this, another 20 bucks wasted" instead of jumping at the barricades like I used to do in the past, claiming at everybody else in range how sucky aforementioned game is and why they should not bother buying it (thus saving them from the same mistake), which in turn would either show said producers around or maybe drive them near or even out of business. Why else?

Because I can. But have I just became with time too greedy with my gaming that I can't take an original game at the cost of having other parts of the game which are clearly out of date, like I've seen regularly in the past? Or is it really a problem that the producers decided to take out of the way by trying to make other people beleive what they think other people should think?

Truth is... I just don't care anymore...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eagle of Fire @ Sep 4 2007, 06:34 PM) [snapback]308722[/snapback]</div>Because of 3 basic things which cover everything else that's going to follow after them:
1. We had too many games. We know too many examples of games. It's more and more difficult to create somethingnew and innovative in this area. And it's more and more difficult for gamers to accept games that lack some of either qualities that earlier games had, with shining examples of past before us.
2. Commercialism. Big companies seek to produce what the masses want, which is mostly bigger graphics and higher system requirements which force gamers to buy new, more expensive hardware. If the game isn't entirely finished yet, it's usually still published, with patches often already following them within minutes.
Such time pressure and strict control isn't exactly the best environment for imagination and innovation.
3. The dawn of current civilization, which is noticeable not only in computer games area. Think of that whatever you would like to.

Btw., I completely share your nostalgy of the golden age of video games.
But remember one thing - it's a past. Past is dead. We're in the present day. It's time to create something new instead of complaining about something that others are doing bad.

If you ask me it's quite simple.

Many people have been running into different problems with newer games, that's why there are so many patches for just about any possible crap out there. And people complained about that - having to get patches to play the game.

So obviously somebody decided to make a game that needs no patches, but you must strip down your computer to do so. You'd be surprised how many kids would gladly uninstal some software (for which they wouldn't care at all - even if it is vital to protect their computer) just so they could get something they bought to run - and not have to search for patches.

wait, if the game doesn't use internet then why and how does zone alarm come in then? as far as i know ZA will only note oyu that programe is trying to access the web. and then you can allow it or not and also tick the box to always allow or always deny.

i think games will go towards realism. i am looking forward mostly to some increased AI and to have more enemies yet once again. i mean FPS started to have this rooms with 1-3 enemies... what i would like to see is something like we saw in doom or duke3d.

and i do think that AI is progressing. you are not playing against dumb statues with predictable movement. and then once you know their movement game becomes easy and boring (e.g all arcade ones as well as strategy ones).

STALKER for example (despite it's flaws because of rushed development) has some replayability rate because each time oyu play it something else might happen. some new event etc. and that's despite the fact that they haven't fully enabled their A-life.

Also new Farcry 2 ideas seem cool (if they can manage to implement them). i mena having clouds (and storms) form because of conditions (and not because they are drawn) makes itinteresting.

Maybe strategy games will get some unpredictable behaviour as well...

and then there is Wii and it's sucess...

Yeah, I hate it when games can't stand being minimised. It's just laziness on the part of the game's makers mostly, it's quite possible to make a game fully compatable with an operating system, it just requires playtesting on a varied number of computers, runnig different OS configurations.

I remember being impressed by the GTA games when I reinstalled Vice City recently; you can minimise the game, and then come back to it with a minimum of effort. Also, the game automatically pauses upon minimisation, whether by interuption by a firewall or some other program, or by accidentally hitting the windows key. This is a game which had the proper effort put into it by it's makers (hence the year sepearating the consoel and PC releases), shows that such issues are only possible to correct with a large input of resources that most developers simply cannot afford to put in.

And I have to say, I do tend to unplug my internet and deactivate my firewall/virus scanner when playing a game; but that's mostly because my computer is showing signs of its age and I need all the free memory I can get, than through fear of minimisation.

Still, this problem is hardly new, I've had problems with minimsation since I first started gaming. It's the way applications that force things to minimise have become widespread that makes this more of a problem, and it's them that really annoy me about software today. Whether it's the popup blockers that pop up to tell you that they've just blocked a popup or the virus scan that start's automatically every week in the middle of the evening, and that takes 10 minutes to stop because it's using up all the of system resources available to it. Also programs like quicktime and steam that start when you turn your computer on so you have to spend the first 10 minutes after you've turned your computer on closing them all, and are only possible to kill by rottling around in msconfig, trying to figure out which arbitrary jumble of letters refers to which program. Then there's things like realsched and jusched that constantly run, hidden from you except deep with the Task Manager, who exist only to communicate with their motherships, to make sure that you instantly know about the next useless update of their terrible program... grrrrr...

I don't think Pc Gaming is dying. What's happening is the contrary. Today Pc games are aimed to a wider public, with a bigger supply of titles and lots of marketing. So, if you want to find a game that fully fullfils your expetations, you'll have to do a bit of research before buying it, and I don't only mean reading a few reviews in some gaming magazines, but looking at different and objetive sources such as player reviews or specialized sites that can escape the influence of marketing and hype in general.

Another point is nostalgia. You've been gaming for many, many years, and that means memories. Don't expect a good new game to confront your golden memories of Pc gaming and remain victorious. That will only happen in a few years, after it has gone through the filter of time and it's been incorporated to those same memories.

About the design, I'm with havell here. There have always been issues with games about that. For instance, I remember all the problems I had running Darkseed back in the days when it was releasedl. On the contrary, I'm playing World of Warcraft right now (at the same time I'm writing this I'm traveling around the world in some flying beast) which is one of the strongest designs I've ever faced, in terms of gameplay, replaying value and technical issues. The same goes for Daggerfall (weak design, still great game) and Morrowind (strong design, great game too).

Leaving aside if modern games are worse gameplay-wise than old ones, what you got was a buggy videogame and moronic tech support. And these are as old as videogames and tech support respectively. As people have already said, old games were not bug-free, on the contrary. Think about UFO and many others.

In the DOS days there could be huge differences between machines whereas now a Windows environment is more standard and friendly to programmers, but on the other hand now a Windows machine has tons of programs multitasking whereas that didn't happen in DOS. So the bottom line hasn't changed that much. Back in the golden age (90s) there were many buggy games, and some of them were very good at the same time. Many people refused to make the game they had bought run (I for example did so with Syndicate which I bought abroad --now I can play it eventually L0L).

As for the programs that popup and make the currently active one minimize, well it's your computer so you control what runs. I myself don't have any scheduled tasks.

IMHO opinion, the simple answer:
1 - Pay by the month games suck. Idon't care of WoW is popular/doing well, it's one of the few, and I think it sucks actually. Modernized Diablo 2, except you have to pay.
2 - I don't know how many games I've bought thinking they would work on my PC and they don't, or games I wasn't sure would work at all and they go off without a hitch.
3 - Too much emphasis on graphics, not enough gameplay. I am currently playing Master of Magic, one of my favorite games ever, (yesterday for 8 hours straight actually), but BioShock from start to finish is 16 hours.

Exactly! I myself think the problem is a combinaison of two problems: the game doesn't even allow me to try to get back to the desktop, and it must be firing up ZA popup box at loading. What happen is that the game freeze at around 90-95% of loading, and won't allow me to do anything else. Not even access the task manager to try to kill either programs! That's moronic at it's best... All I have left to do is press the reset button, something I almost never did in my whole 3-4 years of owning this great gaming rig. Said gaming rig which I almost never have problem with, too.


Thanks everybody for your comments. However, this is not appeasing me the least. I find that your comments just complement mine, in a way or another... *sigh*

I said that the bottom line hasn't changed much, but I'll correct myself. It must be much easier programming for Windows than it was for DOS. But nowadays programmers are lazier. The games from the early 90s were coded in assembly, and later in extremely optimized low-level C. Take a look at the system requirements for Microprose's early 3D flight simulators of the late 80s (I'm talking about 4.77 MHz). And assembly programmers were later bewildered that Doom could have been coded in C and still run on a 486. Now high-level C++ is too low-level for most programmers. Take a look at the system requirements for some amateur freeware FPS that are technically inferior to Doom. Nowadays programmers want to code with one hundredth of the effort neccesary for the same technical result they would have got in 1990, and consequently they're way farther away from the way the computers actually work deep down.

Of course they're damn right. There's no point in optimizing to death if it doesn't add value (like in the OS, browser, etc.). The only reason why things are like this is because there's hardware capable of running advanced 3D games programmed in high-level code.

And about the popups, I forgot to say that the "set and forget" approach of scheduling tasks (or letting programs do it) is overrated because it doesn't always result in "sit and relax". You schedule tasks so that you don't have to worry about them, but then you discover that they're a bigger annoyance than if you had to perform them yourself, because they interrupt your normal usage of the computer. Scheduling tasks is useful when you have a very regular schedule yourself, for example you schedule the computer at work to perform a scan for virus or a defrag when you know you'll be out having a coffee everyday. But at home it's impossible to impose yourself a fixed schedule, unless of course you schedule stuff for times when you're at work or sleeping, but then the computer must be on.

EDIT: Oops EoF's post wasn't there before. :P
__________________________

But EoF, what does ZA exactly do? Or you don't even know because the computer becomes irresponsive? Have you tried creating blocking rules so that ZA doesn't popup any longer asking if it should allow or block? If you can't create the rule because you don't know which app tries to access, try this: block all traffic in ZA, then run the game, then consult ZA's log and see which app tried to access at that time, then create a rule to block that app. The info could make it to ZA's log even if you had to reset before being able to consult it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eagle of Fire @ Sep 4 2007, 09:34 AM) [snapback]308722[/snapback]</div>I use ZA all the time and it can be a little bit of a pain to set up but if you have the new version you can turn on ' game mode ' by right clicking on the taskbar icon this will allow you to set all requests to allow although this is a bit of a blungt aproach !, you can also check the programs list for the program and ammend the internet settings before playing and set the trust level.

one other thing to check is the ZA 'program' logs as this will show what has happened abd if anything was blocked, also check windows event logs for any other issues.

Reason it's dying is because it's moving too fast, and all the supposed hardcore gamers are entirely in support of its rapid advancement.

The technology is too expensive, the constant demand for better graphics from the idiotic mainstream audience, along with the rising cost and development time means the industry is moving too quickly for its time and is using too much money and manpower to develop games with woefully unimpressive gameplay.

Now, it can take someone five minutes to make a tight system on a modern engine. Anyone and his grandmother with a little basic coding knowledge, can take a few models and slap a working game together using a simple marketed editor.

So instead of doing what they're SUPPOSED to be doing, which is attempting to create engines that can process multiple things beyond the "LOOK AT WHAT THE PC IS DOING, EVERYONE, IGNORE EVERYTHING AROUND HIM, IT'S HIM! OH MY GOOOOOOOOD!!!" and into a realm where the game is processing something beyond *dirty word* having your character jump around like a retard shooting bullets with fancy ballistics in place.

What I mean is that they typically slap on the most basic functions, ie jumping, crouching, and shooting in a shooter, and instead of actually attempting to make the game a bit more unique in these aspects (IE Max Payne, IE friggin Half-Life for god's sake, at least make it cinematic you porkers) they slap on some pointless, and I do mean POINTLESS little gimmicks, like Prey's crappy gravity segments, or Crysis' annoying little "reinvention of death matching" when all they're doing is upping the speed by like %50 and making sure everyone will be pissed off by cheap exploits.

Radiant AI was a good step, but guess what, Bethesda goes GAGA and pulls the plug on the damn thing, leaving ALL the capabilities in the game, but stripping it down to the point where it becomes retarded.
All those videos and things they said were entirely true, someone just had a brain spasm and decided to flail around and delete anything that was good.


When games now are taking the amount of time and money it took to make an entire game in 1998, and instead are spending that time on money on, what, shaders? Bump mapping? Realistic ragdoll physics and world mechanics (hint at that shallow money-sucking sap-netting Star Wars game coming out soon) all cost ABOUT FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF MONEY, it takes to create HALF-LIFE in 1998.
This is far too evident, companies actually boast about this.
All it proves to me, is that someone made something fun and revolutionary in the space of time and money it took you to make an aspect that no one will remember.

Myst type games are no longer interesting. Crysis, while it may sell, is most likely going to be a pathetic game, and if its any good at all, it will be uninspired tripe.
The audience this industry has now lets anyone shovel anything down their throat without a single consideration of the gameplay.
Story, graphics, sound, ALL almost always take priority over simple *dirty word* gameplay, GAMEPLAY, something you can script in ten minutes, it doesn't take a GENIUS to make a game that can just do something different, it doesn't take a god damn genius to take a team of 100 *dirty word* people, tell them to use some simple code to MAKE A SINGLE THING DIFFERENT and instead of spreading peanut buttery crap all over our faces with their pathetically optimized 3D galleries of soulless crap, maybe they could have something that reviewers will actually like.

I dunno, maybe Starcraft rings a bell?
Simplest system EVER, but how different is it? How much effort did it take Blizzard to make the game? In comparison to other companies, not much at all.

In fact, compare Starcraft to the development cycle of Tiberium Sun, which was a total failure. For the amount of work and money it took to make Starcraft, Westwood spent nearly ten times as much creating a game with absolutely no unique aspects whatsoever.



The industry is failing because it's bafflingly stupid. Just like Rap, the only way to really save it is to tell everyone to stop, and start over at some point.

That's not going to happen, it's either going to crash like Hollywood did, then slowly start up again, or it's just going to continue to be the worst thing ever for anyone with brains.

You know what's the worse part in all of this? This game is not bad at all. It been at least a dozain times now, in about three days, that I think "I'm bored. Time to play some game... What about this new game I just bought?"... And then, after a few seconds, I think "Oh... Right." and pick another game instead, as I'm already online talking on MSN or downloading something...

Sad. Talk about failing your mission at entertainment...

First of all PC gaming is not dying and it will not be dying until the PC platform starts dying, which isn't any time soon.

Second ZA allows you to manually set programs permission, you don't have to wait for a pop-up.

I think the problem lie within the game, not ZA...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(velik_m @ Sep 4 2007, 05:25 PM) [snapback]308867[/snapback]</div>It's easily dying, it's been stripped for console gaming, things that made playing on the PC exclusively are becoming available in a much easier format on consoles, simple online play with score tracking and extra features, marketplaces, even mods.

Also games are being dumbed down for consoles, biased or not (which I'm not, I have a 360 and a Wii and I like them both) the games are getting simpler, and it's adversely affecting the PC audience as well.
I think the reasoning behind "PC gaming is dying" is not that the quality of the games or the strength of the industry is dying, but it's that innovation really is dead in the terms of gameplay these days.

The most popular excuse is "it's already been done" but that's ridiculous when games like Spore are such obvious concepts (make your own creature then expand with him) that can be easily applied to a gaming world. People are taking much too time to focus on the presentation of their game, and too little time trying to find newer ideas, or methods of expanding the gameplay.

You can play the same stupid shooter 20 times with a different label and enjoy yourself, but really, who's going to remember Prey or Bioshock in the next 20 years when games like Spore and Hellgate London are right around the corner.

For that matter, who really is going to remember spore or hellgate london in the next twenty years?

A lot of people if Spore manage to get the title of "classic"... Which could very well happen, although I won't hold my breath for it...

It's only cuz the games are made specifically for the next gens and our pcs need to be upgraded constatnly $$$

Recently a good friend of mine, who used to be a big time overclocker and modder, said when I asked him, when we can hang out and gamble the next time:
"Gambling on the PC is an expensive thing. I won't spend 300€ for graphic cards no more, I just play consoles by now.(WII and XBOX in his case)."

And that's exactly the point. The only games-genres that can score agains console-games are FPS and sims (SimCity or similar). And the FPS are requiring exactly these expensive GraCas and loads of RAM and Dual-Core and stuff whereas the all good sims already have been produced and don't need expensive hardware.

I know that this is a rather drastic view, but like they say:
"Representativeness by exaggregation!"

EoF, even if there's a problem that the game can't stand a ZA popup and it should, perhaps the problem can be averted if you make it so that the popup doesn't happen. Try creating a rule to block the game (or allow if it's necessary) and if it's a non obvious EXE which is trying to connect, look in the log as I said. It's worth trying if you can finally play the bug-ridden game you paid for.

I still think the problem is with the code and not with your firewall settings.
A game shouldn't interfere with ANY of your securiy-instances.
You can't ALWAYS blame yourself... I think EoF is right. :)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cazgotsaved @ Sep 5 2007, 03:36 AM) [snapback]308898[/snapback]</div>I remember before Sims came out, most of the press was talking - "Who the hell is going to play this game?"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Icewolf @ Sep 5 2007, 10:59 AM) [snapback]308951[/snapback]</div>True, but. If the game can't live with ZA's normal operation there's nothing to do besides turning ZA down. BUT if the game can live with ZA's normal operation and crashes only after ZA's popups, it's still the game's fault but EoF could sort this out in a satisfactory way.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tulac @ Sep 5 2007, 11:36 AM) [snapback]308956[/snapback]</div>+1, even today games are made as innovative and rich as in the old days, regardless of eye candy (it doesn't substitute gameplay but it doesn't hinder it either). Only not so many.

hmm why not right clisk the ZA and block all internet traffic before playing the game? then i think it shouldn't op up any windows and computer is also safe (i mena since the game doesn't really need the connection...

Well, I think the problem here may be that you're paying too much attention to big blockbusters (such as the aforementioned Hellgate London, Spore, Stalker or Star Wars games) and that is a perfect way for finding all those issues you hate (brilliant graphics, impressive sound, poor gameplay, inexistent originality).

Search a bit more, there are plenty of games with interesting concepts and fresh ideas behind all those marketing campaigns. If you hope the game everyone's been talking about for the last two years of developement to be a gem, you'll suerly be dissapointed.

I've thought about that, but the troubleshooting guy didn't paid attention to this. He said he don't know, and why would he bother anyways since he already know how to fix the problem: turn ZA off...

I think you missed the point... The point is that I want to be able to play the game and be online at the same time. Blocking everything is exactly the same than getting offline, closing ZA and playing the game. Which I already can do... Furthermore, I have no problem imagining that the game itself try to connect to the internet on loading... Hey, Civ III Complete (only Atari versions do that) install a spyware everytime it boots, which I know about for a long while now...

Been there, done that... I've purchased City Life exactly for that reason... Not too costly, didn't hear much about it but know fairly well what the game was about and I was expecting it to be good. That, and there was really nothing else on the shelves at the time...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tito @ Sep 5 2007, 08:47 AM) [snapback]309004[/snapback]</div>That's not really what matters, everyone knows System Shock and its sequel's name now because of Bioshock, but who's really played it? Tons of people probably downloaded it from HotU or something and played it for 30 minutes before the atmosphere or lack of direction got to them.
I don't think it applies to discussion when it's about the biggest games in general.
If you have to shift through the mainstream junk to find a decent game that's a problem, I don't want to go online to some small developer's site to buy their game for $60.

As for Spore and Hellgate London I mentioned both of them because their graphics aren't causing any waves in the industry but people are genuinly interested in the gameplay, be it Spore's expansiveness or London's Diablo action on a closer level with tons of cool things that set it apart.

There are very few titles that are still hyped for their concept, or much less, actually played.
There are practically three factors that go into the popularity of a game, its presentation, marketing, and popularity of its brand (IE the Elder Scrolls or Starcraft).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Blood-Pigggy")</div>True true.
But everybody who's everybody who does games has enjoyed the sequel.

My point is that there's no purpose beyond revealing a classic title when you introduce 10 year old games which have already lost their ability to make money for the publisher and developer long ago.
That's what was done with Bioshock and System Shock 2.

System Shock 2 was in no means a poor sale, it did very averagely, but people tend to laud such games so much and ask why there aren't more titles like it, but the fact is is that they didn't buy the game in the first place.

Everyone likes to hear about how GREAT Deus Ex is, but why do most people tend to speak out about good games that aren't exactly in the public eye when it's been out for several years? I hardly heard anyone talk about Deus Ex or System Shock 2 when it was first out, despite the fact that its quality was even more evident back then.

The industry is shallow, it's all marketing and PR, and so are the people who play games, everyone wants to look more sophisticated than everyone else, companies LOVE mentioning older games in order to put everyone into that "Oh, I remember that game! I was one of the few who played it! *Sticks out chest*" mentality.
So instead of actually delivering the same sort of depth these older games provided, companies adore waving them around to incite a fan's interest, or just to alert the general gaming public that their game is more "inspired, and sophisticated" just because they mentioned some obscure game that got good reviews but almost no one played.

I have this little theory about the majority of gamers who march around telling everyone how they should have played this or that game back then, and how originality in the industry is gone because no one plays those types of games.

The largest amount of those people have
-not played many or any of the games they tend to mention
-are the exact type of people that play an older title for ten minutes and become alienated and give up
-have no clue what they're talking about
-think that just because a game is unknown it's somehow more "hardcore"

I just feel it's wrong that the industry today has taken the games that we find so dear, not because we were one of them few that played them, but because we thought they're *dirty word* good, how many people actually appreciate that when they play System Shock 2 after they downloaded it from an Abandonware site? Not many, there's a big difference between someone who likes to know about gaming's past, and someone who still likes to play those older titles.



That whole blurb was kind of confusing, but in summary, my original point from that quote was that "spiritual successor" and "inspired by" are merely tags in order to snab an additional audience, or create credibility, both among gamers and developers.

I'd like to say that I think Blood Pigggy's rant is 100% true and points out nicely this most contemptible trait of humanity.
If you don't believe it's true go to any art gallery and eavesdrop on some chat.

It's so great to see somebody as cynical and hateful as I! :rifle:

Although, I do actually think SS2 and DE are great games <_<

Pay attention to what has been said, you scum!

Blood Pigggy, I have nothing to add and I agree completely. Well written arguments!

btw: Just yesterday, I finally managed to buy thief 1 (with thief collection. Thief 2 and SS2 are propably my most favorite games). I instantly feeled this warm rush of happiness when I played it, I instalty felt like I was in home. :) This is what games should be about, and I just don't feel it anymore with most of new games. It might sound like Im a stuck oldie who cannot tolerate new games.. so fine, maybe I am, but that is my opinion.

The Thief series is actually a good example of using the series' hype to good effect. I thought Deadly Shadows was a pretty good installment in the series.

Though I do think the games were much better a long time ago, I don't see a lack of good games out at the moment. Especially with the orange box coming out... I think it's great. Still, that's just one genre, not really suited for all gamers.

So I don't think that PC is dying, but it's just not like how it used to be. I see a lot of people buying 360's, rather than going out and getting computers, and I wonder why. I know the gamepad is amazing, but the gamepads work on PC. Well I guess I am really asking why, just because it doesn't seem like there is a good bunch of games coming out anymore, like how it may have been before: looking forward to several different publishers, in different genres.

Oh well, I'll just stick to half life, and the NES.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Blood-Pigggy @ Sep 6 2007, 07:22 PM) [snapback]309328[/snapback]</div>Deadly Shadows was better than ok, but it just didn't have the final "it" than the previous ones. It had the same trend as what oblivion was to morrowind: simplified, stripped and easier to adapt. I don't want to go any further in this topic, it's getting really old.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Blood-Pigggy @ Sep 6 2007, 07:22 PM) [snapback]309328[/snapback]</div>What!? :blink: There's MORE than just Deadly Shadows??? (I have it for xbox)

Um, yes, there is, and the other games are much better.

Thief: The Dark Project was released in '98 and its sequel Thief 2: The Metal Age was released in '99.
Thief: The Dark Project precedes Metal Gear Solid and they're really the original 3D stealth games.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bioniclebert @ Sep 6 2007, 09:53 PM) [snapback]309362[/snapback]</div>
consoles are much cheaper than a new gaming rig where you will spend over 500EUR on graphics card alone. so if someone already has working computer that can show him DVD movies, where he can do his (school)work, where he can browse internet, but can't play the latest kewl gamez then why not get a console instead a completelly new computer. it costs abotu 300 or 400 EUR. you wont get a gaming rig for that price.

wii is now even more popular than other consoles, because you can even convince the parents to buy it (all familly funy). :sneaky:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Blood-Pigggy @ Sep 7 2007, 01:26 AM) [snapback]309394[/snapback]</div>Actually Tenchu was first. :P

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("bioniclebert")</div>Because the required specs for running pc games increase exponentially. :ok:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Tulac")</div>I'm sure the statement will be cheerfully revised to first good 3d stealth game :D

I wouldn't say PC gaming is dying, in fact, I think it's prety much alive,emulators and the almost infinite amount of commercial and indie games out there are the exact evidence.

I must say however, that the PC isn't exactly the best gaming platform since you always need to upgrade the system in terms of hardware most of the time just to play certain games, and that needs money.

But despite all this, I do enjoy gaming in a PC, mostly because it's either cheap and free (abandonware, indie).

I don't fully agree with a lot of these comments , a lot of the new games are cross platform anyway , ie: xbox / PC -

PC Transformers

and the (more expensive!) Xbox version -

XBOX Transformers

if you look at the specs required they are not really all that high, I could probably run it fine with my £350 2 year old PC and most new pc's will only require a graphics card upgrade at most for approx £100 to be able to run it.

yes pc's may require an upgrade ocasionally but the 360 will not be the same great machine in two years time either! and just look at all the pc games out on the internet and shops going for great prices which balances it out.

for me a PC beats a console no problems as it is much more versatile. I don't have a 360 and don't really need one. the only thing I don't have is a big screen but if I really wanted to I could get one.

all just my opinion so lots of people will probably disagree :)

Apart from the wizards at sony who're charging, last time I checked, a couple of million pounds for the ps3, the consoles take a whole lot less investment than a pc.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("jg007")</div>Spot me a tenner, buddy? :ok:

According to the game community the only games worth owning are those that tax your hardware, because that's what the mentality of the PC industry is.

@Tulac - My point was that Thief required you to do things that actually involved, I don't know, being clever? Tenchu was very base, even more so than the first Metal Gear Solid.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chumloofah @ Sep 7 2007, 07:40 PM) [snapback]309586[/snapback]</div>Spot me a tenner, buddy? :ok:
[/b][/quote]

hey I probably have less cash than you :bleh: but as I use my PC anyway £100 would still be less than me buying a ps3 or xbox and the games certainly cost me less!

as said my pc is 2-3 years old and plays quake 4 , settlers 6 etc without any problems at all I don't buy many new games but most beta's of games I try run just fine

Like I stated before, I hate buying a PC game #1 because I'm not always sure I can run it. I bought Dungeon Lords for $10 US a couple months ago, and it doesn't work, but Rainbow Six works fine, which IMHO has much better graphics, and #2 you can't return games for the PC because of burning. A lot of places still let you return console games if they suck.
Also, I have an xbox360, and I KNOW that if I buy a 360 game, it'll run. It might be a crappy game, but it'll work if I buy it AND I don't have to buy a graphics card every year or two to play the newest games.
Is PC gaming dying? Yes. I think so. BUT many games (classics like on Abandonia :D ) will be embalmed and dug up many many years from now for great games. Master of Magic being one that I have played probably 30+ hours in the last 3 weeks!

Well, the main reason I find to say that Pc Gaming is not dying is the fact that this kind of argument (that is, new games suck in comparison to old ones, consoles are better for gaming than computers, etc.) has been held for... five years? Maybe ten? I remember this same subject in a magazine by the time Zelda: Ocarina of Time came out, and it was already an old story. And Pc Gaming still remains alive.

It's been an issue for awhile, but it's never been as evident as it is now.
Really, back in 1998 (When Ocarina Of Time was released) the industry was a lot different than it is today.

My belief is that it was headed down hill around 2002-2003 for sure when Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 were on the horizon and EVERYONE wanted to make a shooter that could be better or look better than those two games, it only became entirely evident in 2004 where a unbelievable amount of shooters clogged the system.

The only difference I see then is that the industry is bigger. Lots of FPS followed the apparition of the first Quake, as lots of RTS did with Command & Conquer. Now games are a bigger bussines, so everything takes place in a bigger scale (affecting both Pcs and consoles). So, a good game will be imitated by ten companies with crappy ones, while in the past only five did so. But I still fail to see how can that kill Pc Gaming.

It could kill the PC gaming business in the long run because if you have one good game for 5 other bad games, it's not that bad... When you have 10 bad games for only one good, it's way too much. And it's probably not spotting there, soon many people will simply lose interest and look at their PC thinking that it's not worth the hassle...

In most western countries stores are obligated by law to allow you to return goods without questions.

A much heard argument as to why the PC would be a poor gaming platform is the 'need' to upgrade pc's, which is quite simply a straw man. You can upgrade pc's, if you want to, but there's no need if you want to run new games. My pc is a couple of years old and was only mid-high end when I got it. It still runs Bioshock on its highest settings (save Dx10 features). I've never really had a pc do any worse then that. A decent pc will easily run new games for five or more years after purchasing it without too many concessions. Only after that time would I consider 'needing' to upgrade.
To be honest, I don't think a sensible consumer pays much more for a good gaming pc then he would for a games console. The difference would probably even out when you consider console games tend to be more expensive, and offer less possibilities for extending gameplay.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Doubler @ Sep 8 2007, 01:55 PM) [snapback]309738[/snapback]</div>And to add to this - you can't upgrade consoles. You have to buy a new one every couple of years. Ir's the console market that is constantly dying.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eagle of Fire @ Sep 4 2007, 05:34 AM) [snapback]308722[/snapback]</div>Dude, you´re getting older. Adults are suposed to enjoy games, yet, but not as much as kids. When you´re a kid everything is colorfull and impressive, new and enjoyable. After youve been playing years of diferent games, both bad and good, the feeling just die somewhat.

I remember when I used to play a game for hours straight. Now I can barely do for more than 2. And I dont know if that is good or bad, but I just dont feel atached to the games anymore. Do I blame the PC Gaming Industry? Of course not. I just know its a natural process and, nowadays, it takes a VERY good game to grasp my atention. Which is great, because I´m tired of wasting time on crappy games (like I didn when I was a kid).

Now, if you ask me, the games are much BETTER than they were in the past. Just compare the newer games to the ones of the past. Now, they arent as original, but they sure are well developed. But, of course, sometimes our expectations grow far beyond what games can offer us, so we do end disapointed because of that.

And you really cant blame the producers of the games. There are so many apps, addons, programs and stuff like that avaiable that they cant deal with all the variables. When Firefox alone can have tons of addons, sometimes you cant prepare your game for everything.

Personally, for something to play games on I resent paying anything over 200 quid, and even that's pushing it.
If you want a pc that's going to last 5 years you'll have to fork out a fair sized heap of loot more than that.
This is why, even though I was happy to buy a PS2, I won't buy number 3.
The finks got greedy and went over the line.
Nintendo's still cool though.

Don't let Tulac hear you saying that :P

We'll have to agree to disagree, Demeanor, because I am in disagreement with pretty much all what you just said above.

Actually, I think quite a few good points have been brought up.
First, are we talking PC gaming dying physically or spiritually? PC gaming will continue as long as people have PC's - and I guarantee only more and more people will have PC's. The spirit of the games though I really do believe will only get worse until the people that buy the games wake up and say "I WILL NOT BUY CRAPPY GAMES ANY LONGER!" and also hold the game companies or PC companies more responsible for putting requirements on the games. (As I said before - some games that should work don't, and those that SHOULD - don't. Why?) A game does not always have to be "innovative" to be good. It CAN be, but it doesn't make a good game to have an innovation or two.
A store doesn't actually HAVE to have a return policy at all. They just do that for consumer confidence/sales.
In the USA - I bought my computer for just under 800 dollars, my xbox360 elite was only 500 - and they just dropped the price to 450. The games on the 360 would not run or barely on my PC> I have Battle for Middle Earth on 360 that runs almost perfectly, but it will only run at lowest settings on my PC.
and Yes, I am getting older (24) but I think that only means that I am more selective in my choosing of games. Rather than picking for how a game "gets the blood pumping" I choose for quality - Doom 3 was merely a way to get people scared and have them run around blasting things and jumping out of their seats. It was "fun" - but only for a little while. Why can I play the Fallout series over and over again (usually about once a year)? Because not only is the story good, but there is CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT - something that many games do NOT NOT NOT have. Writers KNOW that character development is a key point to a story. Game writers have forgotten this, by and large. THAT will be a key point in reviving the spirit of PC gaming, and gaming in general.

Well, for one there are a bunch of morons programming now. Those who wish destruction on the computer. They program it so BADLY that you have to wonder what is wrong with them. Take Windows Vista as an example. All it is is rehashed XP. In fact it still is technically in beta version. I believe that the best games I have played have been coded in C(which I am inferring is a low level language?). Like the game Noctis(look on Reloaded). It is 1 megabyte and contains a galaxy with explorable planets. PC gaming is only dying because there is too much money being thrown around. Face the facts, programmers make more money if the game is in development, than if it is completed well. Hence all of the patches. It is what is known as an insurance policy.

^ those duke nukem forever boys must be bajillionaires!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kingdom Falls @ Sep 10 2007, 02:57 AM) [snapback]309956[/snapback]</div>You got it all wrong. Programmers are being pushed by irrational marketing and release dates set way to early, so many times they deliver a semi product because they don't have the time to develop the game. Why is every Blizzard's game a success? Because they develop games as long as they need to.

well they are pushed by their bosses to meet their quota.

so it's not only sales fault for this. it's the planners :P

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gregor @ Sep 10 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]310046[/snapback]</div>I do not really think one (or even many) can create a masterpiece in about a year or so, even if everything is planned down to the last second.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tulac @ Sep 10 2007, 07:02 AM) [snapback]310042[/snapback]</div>You got it all wrong. Programmers are being pushed by irrational marketing and release dates set way to early, so many times they deliver a semi product because they don't have the time to develop the game. Why is every Blizzard's game a success? Because they develop games as long as they need to.
[/b][/quote]

But Blizzard is one of the few companies that receive enough funding and that people truly realize need time to properly develop a game, there's just too much disrespect to smaller companies, there aren't going to be any new emerging companies if every publisher or owner of those small companies pushes them to make their games quickly because they're not as reputable and they can't be bothered to waste as much time as money.

It basically means that any new entries into the industry are being killed solely because they're not well known, they never get a chance to make a good game because everyone rushes them for being new and having no record, and the bigger companies essentially get more attention from the general gaming public so they gain more and more, as smaller companies die out more and more.
In the future, it's going to cost so much to set up a new company or development studio that it'll be impossible for anyone to get into the industry other than being a employee of a already established massive studio.

It's practically turning into the film industry.

@Catz - I don't think people will realize that the games they're playing are crap, they never will, it was the same in the 80s and 90s, the only problem is these BIG companies that run everything because they're given all the time and money they need to make big budget games.
That's why people are complaining about the lack of good games and general lack of games "everywhere" essentially, because there aren't smaller titles being released by the side as much as they used to.
People need to stop pathetically worshiping their stupid favorite company (IE Bethesda, Blizzard, Valve, id, EA) and play games aside from the brand and name.

That won't happen, you are right Catz, the industry may be alive as far as the experts know on the basis of money and the number of people buying products, but the industry is dead and buried as far it comes to spirit and creativity.
There's no more room for the small guys, that's what MADE the industry in the 80s and 90s, ALL the small guys, all the time publishers and developers got because there weren't any guaranteed "win" companies that could make a pretty looking stupid game in a matter of a year or two and give you big bucks from the generic retard teenagers and gamers in their 20s.

Well, but who said the games being released nowadays are that bad? Maybe they are made for a diferent generation that is not ours.

Just because we dont like them, doesnt mean they are that bad. Of course, there is a shitload of crap stuff, but sometimes something good comes out.

But I do agree: You have to give chances to smaller companies. For example, there is this 4X game called Galactic Civilizations 2 that is VERY good, but I rarely see it mentioned anyway. And the great thing is that they have a very good suport group.

I've heard of Galactic Civilization II, so I went to my local PC store and sighted the first game (Galactic Civilization).

Played it, found it below average... So never bothered to look at the second one.

^You shgould be cutten and half and digested by a bullsquid - GC we're awesome!

Ha! I'd play MOO over GC anytime. I don't see the interest, it's just like a clone of MOO but with a backstory I'm not interested with... :huh:

Perhaps part of the reason I didn't play GC2 on my PC is because it wouldn't work. Once again, something that should work, doesn't. MOO seems to work fine though... :sneaky:

Galactic civilisations 2 didn't work? how come?

anyway i didnt' play the first but second one is a bit hard - the campaign mode (on a descent level). but it's nice if you dont' play the campaign mode. you can set all up and let the fight begin...

i like the animated battle sequence when two fleets fight. you can watch form every angle and it makes you like being there. also i think game has nice graphics (see some custom made ships that look like modeling masterpeice). and also diplomacy works good.

the thing is it is kind of hard to get an edge over other civs. and in campaign mode the oponent is way too powerfull. i mean they send one ship and it can not be stopped at all with all your fleets (mainy because you do not poses any weapons to do so le talone ships that could carry them). so if you ask me that is too freakin hard. i mean one of their socut ships destroy all of your, your allies and enemies armada and you are supposed to stop them?!?! send the armada in and then bring their frigate or cruiser or whatever and tear it appart.

but like i said the non campaign game is extremelly fun and quite addictive...

@gregor

You are NOT supposed to destroy the Dread Lord ships. That's why they are so powerful. If you read the story, you should know that they are a long lost civilization with power beyond imagination, so it's only natural you can't stop them. (Although I managed to kill one cruiser once. They killed 14 of my hugest and bestest battleships, but I managed to bring one down :D) But the graphics is the lest important part of this game. The game mechanics, the gameplay, the different tactics and the virtually endless replay possibilities are the best stuff. If you haven't played the fist part, I suggest you do so. It's much easier, and you can learn the basics there ;)

:blink:

but they took over two of my 3 planets. even with everything explored i would have a problem reaching their base without any base or without those planets. not to meniton that development is hard with only one planet. I had some AI allies but they got their a**es kicked too.

wheareas in the "freestyle" mode i don't have any problems. but i still haven't played with enhanced AI. i did one with them having economy at 100%. a long battle ensued with many alliances. basically it seems similar to civilisation with elements of Space empires. i loved it. and i still play it form time to time. only problem is once i start i can not stop so i take all day in front of computer (planning attack, designing new ships) which is also the reason i stopped. For now at least.

Yeah, now that you should avoid. The key in the campaign is to do it as fast as possible. It's in the campaign description that the dread technology is very technology dependant, and they a lot of time to expand their factories, so you gotta move fast to reach your goal BEFORE they get too strong :ok: It's not impossible but requires a lot of time and swearing :D

Well, dropping on this discussion, there isn't much to add, except my little insight on the matter.
Been a gamer for far too long, and managed to play some of the great DOS titles of the early nineties.

At those times, console games were very different of PC gaming.
I remember when my father ditched my Mega Drive (best known as Sega Genesis), when he bought a very expensive IBM PS/1, which was a 486 SX 33MHz, with whooping 4MB RAM. The best part (for the time) was it's video board, a Cirrus Logic with 1MB. Later, we were very happy to add external cache memory (and it was REALLY expensive, btw). Enough nostalgic ranting.

I found myself literally in a black hole, staring at that DOS screen, with that HUGE manual to understand the simple basics. And I was very disappointed that I couldn't find my personal favorite genres anywhere on that stupid gray box.

Except...

It came with Alone in the Dark.
That changed my life.
Then, it was Doom.
And, the icing on the cake, those brilliant Star Wars games, specially TIE Fighter.
Only later, I could play Ultima VIII. That hooked me into a genre I always tought was tiresome.

At those days, no need to fiddle with different video drivers. The tradeback was getting enough memory to run that stuff (TIE Fighter always made MAD, with that EMS crap). Ah, the good old days of memmaker, and QEMM.

After, let's say, TIE Fighter, I became much more picky about games. It impressed the hell out of me back in 1994, and it still manages to impress today, many years later.

Call that "golden memories", nostalgy, whatever. I'm yet to see something that impress nowadays.
And the only thing that tickles my curiosity, is that Nintendo Wii thing. There will always be something about small red plumbers and mushrooms that makes me feel warm and fuzzy (well, not THAT warm, anyway!). :max:

Today, gaming in general is done by numbers. And big numbers: number of polygons, number of sounds, number of shaders, number of simultaneous online players shooting each other again and again and again. Number of millions wasted in their so called "development". And number of the directX version it "needs" to show you a different light source. Yet, some kids get marvelled at Grid Wars. Amazing, huh?

Well, I guess I'm getting too old for video-games, but when I want a GOOD FPS shooter, I always play Doom again. And not Prey, or whatever they boast to be the new kid in town.

Gameplay is the word.

But seems to be sadly forgotten...


PS: And nevermind my lacking english skills... ;)

PC Gaming may or may not be dying.

I do remember (I know I'm only 17, anyways) a time when games used to take more than 2 days of playing to beat and they didn't emphasize much on graphics. This sometimes does happen in new-a-day games, but people look at screenshots and then think the game "looks" crappy. Take for example Hearts of Iron 2 Doomsday. It's like Risk/Axis & Allies on every single drug out there. It is crazy fun and is one of my most played games currently with approximately 140 hours. Most games now-a-days are too short because as mentioned before, they only focus on graphics. If the game would have crazy good graphics and crazy long gameplay... the game would be too large (10-16gb?). Then people would complain again. I think this is because too many children play video games now. Before video games were aimed at late teens and up and that's the way it should be. Kids should be allowed to play video games, but the games shouldn't be tailored for them because there are too many of those now (Cough, Wii, Gamecube).

I just hope the industry smartens up and looks back at their roots.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cazgotsaved @ Sep 4 2007, 12:07 PM) [snapback]308809[/snapback]</div>That is a EXTREAMLY ignorant oppinion and is just one of those annoying attempts to sound elitist 'cause your a Old school gamer. Especcially since Diablo and World of warcraft except for a multiplayer component have very little in common. And the major problem with running a online game where you can support these kind of numbers to play you need to do pay by month. Servers and having a insane amount of content like most Massivly multiplayer games do. Requires a lot of work and requires massive servers just to hold it let alone host several thousand happy customers. And besides there are 8 million happy little WOW players just dying to say your wrong.


Get used to paying for games like you would any other service.

(Oh I don't play WOW by the way or any MMO)

1 - Pay by the month games suck. Idon't care of WoW is popular/doing well, it's one of the few, and I think it sucks actually. Modernized Diablo 2, except you have to pay.

That is a (spelling error)EXTREAMLY ignorant (and again) oppinion and is just one of those annoying attempts to sound elitist 'cause (grammar error)your (and again)a Old school gamer.
---Some people might have the same thought about YOUR opinion as well.... :whistling:
and yes, I am a fairly "old school" gamer - was that supposed to be an insult?

(you have a spelling error here) Especcially since Diablo and World of warcraft except for a multiplayer component have very little in common.
---Little in common? Let's see, pick a character with widely differing play styles, have the chance to join as a group, fight monsters, or each other...you play 1 character who can grow to a very high level, possibly even summon a little helper or two, go to different worlds or areas, etc etc etc I don't have time to prove you are wrong completely - that's just a sample of your uninformed statement.

And the major problem with running a online game where you can support these kind of numbers to play you need to do pay by month. Servers and having a insane amount of content like most Massivly multiplayer games do.
---Hmmm....I think I said I don't care if it's popular and doing well, didn't I? Also, it's one of THE FEW - which is a FACT - look it up please, thank you. Oh, and the KEY words here: "I" and "think" - it is my right to have an opinion, even if you dont' agree with it, which I obviously don't agree with yours. No need to flame, is there sonny?

Requires a lot of work and requires massive servers just to hold it let alone host several thousand happy customers. And besides there are 8 million happy little WOW players just dying to say your wrong.

#1 - I know the kind of work that goes into it. Probably better than you do, friend. But I know when to admit someone is ... older and wiser?
#2 - Yes there are millions of happy lil' players saying I'm wrong. That's why they allow themselves to be swindled. I don't think I was debating that. Didn't I say it was popular and doing well?
#3 - What was the point of your post again?


Get used to paying for games like you would any other service.
---Um, no. Notice I'm not paying, and therefore, not playing? :blink:

(Oh I don't play WOW by the way or any MMO)
---Then why are you talking?

---Elitist? No friend, not until I'm provoked.

edit - I'm not seeing the spelling mistake?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(slayer80 @ Sep 13 2007, 02:26 PM) [snapback]310652[/snapback]</div>you forgot the number of FPS. :D

Farcry 2 seems very promissing (if they will mkae it work and if it will work on a bit older maschines as well). And S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is good too if you like gameplay and if you get it to work :bleh:

EDIT: Forgot to add Morrowind and if you like 3D RPG then Arx Fatalis. Although they are not really new ones, so...

It was 1 in the morning when I posted that. You also have a spelling error in your writing by the way. And don't go into your age bull**** because I am not falling for it. What you just said was a blanket statement that pay by the month games suck. And that is a stupid thing to say because you aren't saying why or which games. I am sure you haven't played every subscription based games. So your oppinion on the subject is therefore useless and improperly researched.

the reason I said they suck wasn't an attack on their poularity, the work that goes into them, any glitches, etc - it was my opinion based on the fact that you generally pay just as much for them as a non-pay-by-the-month game, (40-50 bucks) and then have to continue to pay anywhere from 8-15 bucks more...EVERY month. And most of them if you stop paying will immediately delete your acct - so you can't just stop playing for a couple months because you get bored, and then pick it back up again later.
It's an opinion. Get over it. If you have one of your own, feel free to share - but why start flaming a bit and calling others ignorant?
Also, my opinion useless? Yes, and so is yours. Neither one of us is going to seriously effect the future of gaming unless we go into the industry, or become rich lobbyists (LOL) so rather than flame, why not just say why you don't agree...?
I'm not pulling the "age bull****" - but let's face it, I can remember games that are older than you are. Same goes for me - there are plenty of others on this site that could say the same about me. Gotta respect the elders, sonny LOL

Yeah, most MMORPGs or MMO for any matter are made purely for addictive purposes in order to get more money for the people who made it. It doesn't actually have to be fun to be addictive.
Unfortunatly, as I said previously in the thread, there are MILLIONS of people who can't tell the extremes on games, therefore they can't really tell what's good, so they play bad games and even though they may feel it becomes repetitious they can't look at smaller details that will totally turn them off for good reason.

WoW is mediocre, the game doesn't have a purpose, it doesn't have a real community, and for one thing, the things you actually do aren't fun, the only reason people play is because of digital materialism, so they can get their imaginary objects that will make their character more powerful or gain a level, really, MMORPGs rely on developers giving enough of a satisfying feeling when you do these things, the actual process of getting them is not fun at all, and the majority of your time will be spent doing the things that aren't fun.

It's like drugs, you struggle to get that short high and then when you realize that you got you wanted you want to get something else, you'll start going for that.

It's tedious, anyone who actually looks back at the game and analyzes will realize that there's truly no entertainment value in it.
The same thing happened with Diablo 2, I really enjoyed the singleplayer AND the multiplayer back when the game was just released, but when I installed it again in 2005 five years after I had last played it, when online, played for a few hours, then I sat back and LOOKED at the game, and realized it was not the same experience that it used to be, it was ruined.

You may use the cliche that I'm saying "I can't see the forest, because there's a bunch of trees in the way" but IT IS APPLICABLE in certain situations, why would I waste my time on something that after hundreds of hours I'd look back and say "That actually wasn't fun at all" I'd rather spend 100 hours on something genuinely fun like Fallout than spend 100 hours running after useless and in the end entirely meaningless things in WoW.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Blood-Pigggy @ Sep 14 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]310977[/snapback]</div>#1 - Thank you Blood, I couldn't find the words but that nails it exactly.

#2 - I think it's actually "can't see the forest for the trees" :bleh:

#3 - Fallout!? Blood for teh win! (Rep points +1)

Ok, as I was the one who brought WoW into discussion, a few things. I only talked about it as a good example of strong design. The fact that you have to pay is annoying in one way (quite obvious) but good in another. When you have to pay for something you actually are more willing to enjoy it, and this, in WoW, prevents the kind of player who thinks "Bwa ha ha! I'm the best and I will annoy all those players so they can see how big my ego is". It is the same when you party in Ibiza, as everyone has payed about 35 € for entering a disco, no one is willing to start a fight, as that would be innapropiate for such an investement.

And please, forgive my mistakes, I'm a bit rushed.

That was my opinion on WoW though, I consider it nothing more than a cleverly designed money pit.

:blink: Two posts appeared while I was writing mine! Couldn't you guys just wait a bit, so I can make a logical response, and then you can bust it in any way you want?

Actually, mine, while intended as a response for a previous one, seems to fit quite well where it is. Just a few comments.

I know WoW is a money pit, but not that much. One month in it is as expensive as one hour in a saturday night in my city, and it won't hurt your liver, nor give you hangovers.

Also, every single game, if it is a good one, is designed to be addicteve, and by this I mean that, being good enough, it will automatically hook you to the screen 'til you end it. The only difference is that some games are longer than others. About the digital materialism, it is the same thing. In a FPS you'll go for the bigger weapon, the nastier enemy or the next level. In a RTS you'll want to see a more powerful unit. In an adventure you'll look for another landscape or twist in the plot. And why bothering about traditional RPG's? As I said, the same thing. If you want to carry it to an extreme, you can look down on any game. And I, personally, can tell when I'm enjoying something.

Now that everybody knows who likes WoW and who hates it, can we go back to the discussion about Pc Gaming?

Even better, I'll go out for a beer or two so I can throw an answer full of typos and weird reflections (even if there is no question at all), so this thread can remain alive. I'm starting to like it.

Can't say the idea of paying to pay the game you've already bought appeals to me in the slightest.
If you've got money for that you've got money to do real things like take up smoking or drinking or whoring :ok:
Plenty funner things than levelling for free too
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Tito")</div>It's not really.
In a proper game you have a goal beyond getting stronger and finding phatter loot.
When it gets to the point where that's all that's going on it's time to get a job and a gym membership and become a lvl 2 human. :D

I disagree, a shooter has a constant thrill that comes from more than just killing monsters, getting to the next level, or getting a bigger gun.

Half-Life is a massive testament to this, so are games like Far Cry to a certain extent. Half-Life introduces the cinematic aspect and entertains you by involving you in situations that aren't just a shooting gallery. Far Cry introduces an exploration element and you benefit from actually DOING the actions in the game. When you kill baddies in a shooter, you'll be doing it for most of the game.
If the game is done as it's supposed to, it's entertaining. WoW on the other hand, as I said, only gives you momentary satisfaction from the game once you find that item or gain a level. Even Diablo 2 managed to avoid that since killing hundreds of enemies in itself is very entertaining.

As for RTS games, well, killing 20 carriers with 100 marines really proves that RTS titles aren't about the next big unit if they're done properly.

Well, about WoW... Since I am the thread starter, I'll comment on this.

I dislike MMORPGs. A lot. They are usually only made for you to spill your money to the developpers and the game usually stagnate until you get fed up and leave because you been playing the same game over and over and over again for years.I was very reluctant to try out WoW, and I would probably never have tryied if it wasn't of one of my friends who was sick at the time and had nothing to do than play computer games all day (and rest). So I started a free account to give him some company... And then, as I began playing around more seriously on my own, I saw the light.

What kind of light, you ask? Not the "OMG this is the best kind of game I have ever played I must be smitten not to have seen this before!" kind of light... But the "God, this game is a true gem and it's probably the best of it's kind ever made yet" kind of light.

Sure, I still dislike MMORPGs. Just like I still hate adventure games. This never stopped me, however, to try some once in a while and stop to analyse the strenght and the weaknesses of each game. There is crappy games in all genre, and there is real gems in all genres too. WoW is one of those gems. I tryied a lot of MMORPGs in my days, and I always got a lot of issues about them. WoW managed to even out almost all of those issues, and it's still fun to play while at the same time having enough different content to please any kind of player.

So, yeah... MMORPGs (usually) sucks. But just like I'd tell you to try MOO and Master of Magic if you think that strategy games in general sucks... Try out WoW at least once before complaining, even if you think MMORPGs sucks. It's that good.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chumloofah @ Sep 14 2007, 10:00 PM) [snapback]311003[/snapback]</div>As I already said, one month in WoW is as expensive as half of a night out in Madrid. I'm not comparing then, actually I enjoy both :bleh: . But please, stop presenting MMORPG players as rich addicts unable of doing anything else in their lives. I consider myself, at least, a level 2 and a half human. :D

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Blood-Pigggy @ Sep 14 2007, 10:02 PM) [snapback]311004[/snapback]</div>What I was trying to demonstrate is that your argument can be applied to any game, if taken to an extreme. Not that I really think all those genres suck. I've been playing them for many years, and I like them. It is just that your point of view isn't also appliable to WoW, as the game offers many more things than those you mentioned.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eagle of Fire @ Sep 15 2007, 02:03 AM) [snapback]311024[/snapback]</div>Thanks Eagle, at least you have to played the game for quite a while before saying it sucks/doesn't suck

Lemme chime in on this one before I disapear again. I want to go back to the original topic.

PC gaming is not dead. There are new games coming out for PC that you can't get on a console. The only reason you think PC gaming is dying is because there are games on XBox and Wii coming out that you want. But nothing really has changed. Lets review a little (generalized and over simplified) PC gaming history:

When IBM PCs had CGA graphics console kids had 16 colors on their nintendo. When PCs had 16 colors the sega genesis had 32. For a while if you wanted arcade quality games, consoles were the only place to go.

Then PCs pulled ahead with two major advancements: 256 color and mouse control. Soon 16 million colors and 3D full 3D games (quake) took point and PC gaming became a buzzword. Oh sure, StarCraft was ported to the N64, but have you ever actually played it? And sure, doom and quake made it on to numerious consoles years after PC gamers had unlocked all their secrets. For a while it was accepted that if you were a PC gamer you had the superior system. Consoles were for those who couldn't afford a graphics card.

However, that started changing with James Bond on the N64. Finally FPS gaming was successfully brought to a console. It was playable, it was fun, and it wasn't available on PC. But that was okay. PCs still had RTS and there was nothing any console could do to take that from us.

Unfortunatly there was nothing any console needed to do. RTSs had their run and now they're not that great. They have their fan base I suppose, but as a commercially viable genre they've kinda faded. Halo then solidified the console as a FPS system and consoles pulled ahead again.

PCs still have MMORPGs, like 'em or not, they are a financially viable medium for commercial success in PC games. Will PCs ever pull ahead again? Probably. Maybe not. Who knows. But PC gaming isn't dying because it can never die. It's position right now is weak, but so what? It's not like I have any time to play games any more anyways.

That wasn't the point Guesst, the whole point is that gaming is watered down.

Nothing could be more false... Actually, that's why I think that PC games are dying: people think that. But not the real hardcore gamers.

What actually worked well for PC gaming in the past and which is pretty much ageless because it doesn't absolutly require heavy graphics is strategy games and adventure games, as a broad definition. However, those kind of genres are the least developped those days, especially because "everyone else" think that what's hot right now is FPS, action games and whatnot.

Nothing's new, all they are doing is sitting on their hands and releasing games after games after games of the same brand, betting on the fact that the fan base will be enough to give them enough money even if the game is a total disaster. So, which platform is best if you want to rehearse the same game time after time with very minor differences? Consoles. Because Console gamers just don't care, are too young to realise or have the money to spill mindlessly into the thing.

At least, that's how I see it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Eagle of Fire")</div>Dat's kinda snobbish, dawg ;)

When it comes down to it, the real problem is, as with everything else in the world, size.
Game market's too big, which means that it's so much harder to spot that diamond in the rough that you might have noticed without too much trouble 10-20 years ago.
Let's face it, really awesomely original games were never common.
I'll bet the classy games are still there.
If you want them just grab your snorkel and get into that big ol' pile of muck.

I think most of them just don't care though.

As for "snorkelling" the games out... One of the big problem is that the "pile" is now so big, it's not really worth it anymore. You are going to waste way too much time finding said game than to actually play them...

A lot of good points for all. Makes sense about the ups and downs of interest in pc gaming or consoles. Starcraft64 IMO was (compared to PC) awful. Battle for Middle Earth, which I have for the xbox360, (compared to PC) is awful.
There are some genres that are more fun on the PC. I think part of the problem is that if you don't get into computers early on in life, you tend to get left behind. Speaking of graphics cards, that's probably my biggest problem. I got a 1MB comp, but it has Split DDR Memory whatever the heck that means. Well, I found out it means you can actually only play 512 games, not 1MB. Needless to say, I was kinda pissed off.
But that's what I get for not researching/being knowledgeable about computers. However, if I go to the retail store and buy an xbox360 game, it WILL work on my system.
Anybody want to make millions? You create an ipod nano sized device w/ a USB plug. You plug it into your computer, it reads your system specs, then you take it to the local PC retail store. From now on, every store has a little computer device (this TYPE of thing is popular in Japan for dl'ing Nintendo DS stuff BTW) that you can plug your little ipod nano device into. You bring up the game you are looking at buying, and it tells you whether or not it will work, how WELL it will work, etc etc.
All I ask is that when you invent it, after you make a million dollars, maybe send me a check for $100,000 US. After that, keep everything else you make.
kthnxbye

Now when you buy a game and open a box, get the game installed and running... the whole process isn't like what it used to be.... it was different before, back then, even installing it was fun... reading the manual was fun, teh game wasn't just something to waste time, it was an experiance... Its not the same now, with companies like EA making the same crap over and over, like thier sports games that cost 50$ for every new version that has a few minor differences..

and people still buy those 50$ sports games.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("gregor")</div>Why wouldn't they pay 50 kwatlus for the next sports game in the series?
The teams have all been updated to the current season!
That kind of obsessive compulsive need to play with your team's current players drives people.

Quick School Lesson - it's " $50 " not " 50$ "

Don't take offense - I only speak English LOL

well there could be just rooster updates....

@ cazgotsaved - i actually never use these symbols :-/

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gregor @ Sep 19 2007, 06:06 AM) [snapback]311707[/snapback]</div>They add poultry to the game?

you say
50 dollars = 50$
not mathematical statement of $50

Edit:Missed the last post date... can we continue this?