Does it seem that there are fewer good new PC games?

[adam_grif]

I dont about the specific part. Very few games have been console exclusive. Every super duper hit game from Bioshock to ME series is very much enjoyable on the PC as well. My questions is, is the gripe about consoles or is it about the nature and quality of modern games ?

There are still lots of exclusives, everything by Nintendo (if you're missing out on Super Mario Galaxy, you're missing out on some of the best gaming ever), and everything first/second party from Sony. Uncharted 2 was the 2009 GOTY, without a doubt. God of War is awesome fun. If you're a 360 gamer, there's Halo games, but aside from that even first party microsoft stuff gets ported to PC.

But really, the issue isn't "you can't get things on console", it's that there aren't many/any high quality PC exclusives coming out. If you can get PC games and 360 games on 360, but only PC games on PC, then a 360 is a better investment. Preferred controller (K&M) + slightly better graphics on some games isn't really that impressive, all things considered. Back in the day, there would be an array of new titles on the horizon that:

- Looked like they were going to kick ass.
- Were somewhat innovative.
- Had mind blowing graphics

Now, it's all multiplatform or console exclusive. There ARE still PC exclusives, mainly in the form of grand strategy and shit, but it's all very niche. The shooter is now comfortably at home on consoles, and a portion of the RTS genre has migrated there too. Those were the two largest PC markets, so PC just doesn't have the unique range of games that it once did.

He touches on another issue; most people simply don't give a fuck about the incremental improvements high-end gaming has shown in the last few years.

Yep. A lot of people probably WOULD care... if the improvements weren't so fucking tiny. NOBODY pushes the new hardware. Even Crysis 2 is a console shooter first, PC shooter second. As an industry, they've decided to just stagnate graphics development.

What's going to be interesting is the next rung of consoles, hopefully that will finally encourage some improvement in that area.

[General Zod]

Who wants to push the new hardware to its limits if nobody can afford to play it? Most people aren't going to drop $700 on the latest greatest graphics card every year just to be on top of things graphics wise.

[chris0101]

Actually that was what I was getting at. It seems to me many people are of the impression cross platform games have hurt PC gaming. I don't understand that sentiment at all.

A lot of the time, instead of making new games, the idea is to make console games and then port them to PC, which often results in a pretty bad port and a worse game compared to the console game.

The other problem is bugs, although consoles are not to blame here. Console games tend to be released as bug free as possible because patching them is hard. Often PC versions are released with known issues and then later patched - the end result being half-finished games, which leads to frustrated gamers, and in the long run, fewer sales for PC games.

Regardless, my emphasis is not on better graphics (although that is a side benefit), and I am well aware that most PCs are not armed with the latest GPUs or CPUs. My emphasis is on games with great gameplay, that are in depth, that require a good deal of thinking and complexity. With consoles, there is a trend to "dumb down" the PC version versus the console version. Consider for example Supreme Commander (the first one, not the second one which sucked). It's PC version was with the Forged Alliance expansion complex, games could go on for hours, and it needed a lot of planning. The console version was much less exciting and didn't feel as interesting.

Another example would be the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. It was an example I think of a well done port. However, look at the modding community behind Oblivion and its subsequent expansion (plus the DLC) that is not there for the console version. Mods are one of the biggest reasons why I love the PC versions of games. It's that open environment, that customization that makes the PC so great.

Edit:

Also, you don't need to be buying the latest GPU or CPU either to enjoy the good computer gaming. Again, attributable to the openness of PC platforms. Contrast this with the console where you have to buy the console to use the game.

[General Zod]

The other problem is bugs, although consoles are not to blame here. Console games tend to be released as bug free as possible because patching them is hard.

Utter nonsense. Patches are released for console games all the time, as long as you have an internet connection it's completely painless.

[adam_grif]

Who wants to push the new hardware to its limits if nobody can afford to play it? Most people aren't going to drop $700 on the latest greatest graphics card every year just to be on top of things graphics wise.

The industry was like that for over a decade. The graphics scale down, but it was up to the developers whether a game was going to run on an entry level PC or whether you'd require a beast to run it well at launch. A year or two after launch mid level PCs would be able to handle the beastly games just fine (i.e. Crysis).

The thing that has me down isn't that this cycle is no-longer perpetuated, it's that nobody is pushing very much past PS3/360 visuals, 5 years after they launched.

[General Zod]

Who wants to push the new hardware to its limits if nobody can afford to play it? Most people aren't going to drop $700 on the latest greatest graphics card every year just to be on top of things graphics wise.

The industry was like that for over a decade. The graphics scale down, but it was up to the developers whether a game was going to run on an entry level PC or whether you'd require a beast to run it well at launch. A year or two after launch mid level PCs would be able to handle the beastly games just fine (i.e. Crysis).

It might have something to do with the costs outweighting the benefits. I mean it's nice to say you've got a pretty game pushing a billion googleflops but if it takes you a year to recoup costs (by which time your studio might get closed) what's the point?

The thing that has me down isn't that this cycle is no-longer perpetuated, it's that nobody is pushing very much past PS3/360 visuals, 5 years after they launched.

Nonsense. Compare games from the 360's launch to some of this year's titles. The thing is they're not sudden leaps, it's all incremental. Expecting sudden leaps is absurd; and quite frankly it's vastly overblown. Most people don't give a shit if a game pushes the hardware to the envelope as long as it's fun to play and doesn't look like complete ass.

[adam_grif]

Nonsense. Compare games from the 360's launch to some of this year's titles. The thing is they're not sudden leaps, it's all incremental. Expecting sudden leaps is absurd; and quite frankly it's vastly overblown.

I'm aware that there's incremental improvements, after all I've been gaming on 360/PS3 since launch

What I'm saying is that nobody is taking advantage of the constantly improving PC hardware to push beyond something that the consoles could do. This far into the PS2 / GC / XBOX lifecycle, it was 2005, and we were having games like F.E.A.R. and HL2 Ep 1 on the horizon, that were really a generation beyond what people were doing on console.

Now it's pretty much interchangeable.

It might have something to do with the costs outweighting the benefits. I mean it's nice to say you've got a pretty game pushing a billion googleflops but if it takes you a year to recoup costs what's the point?

Pretty sure I already said that earlier in the thread. I'm well aware of why they no-longer do that.

Most people don't give a shit if a game pushes the hardware to the envelope as long as it's fun to play and doesn't look like complete ass.

I KNOW. What I said was that I miss it when it was the other way. It was awesome always having the new tech to look forward to. Every E3 was like fucking Christmas.

[Stark]

Worrying about GPU stagnation when nobody could think of a real use for modern high-end video cards is strange.

Last time I checked games were still not anything near photorealistic, so there is still room for improvement, but since the console hardware platforms now pretty much decides how the graphics will be designed, we will have to wait for the next console generation for significantly better graphics. You make it sound like the current 360/PS3 level graphics were the end of the line, which is pure hogwash and you know it. 1920x1080 HDTVs with larger screens are also getting more common and now that HDMI is standard everywhere, more and more people will also have the opportunity to appreciate the improved graphics.

Quote me saying that.

My point is that we've had what... a year? of hardware outstripping software. Is there any point to own a max-level video card anymore? Will ANYTHING benefit from it? The average PC game isn't that much more attractive than a console game, so in the end it's meaningless. Your strawman doesn't change the fact that even a 240 can run anything on huge settings, so the power of PCs is clearly wasted. Who could have guessed that better art costs more money?

[General Zod]

What I'm saying is that nobody is taking advantage of the constantly improving PC hardware to push beyond something that the consoles could do. This far into the PS2 / GC / XBOX lifecycle, it was 2005, and we were having games like F.E.A.R. and HL2 Ep 1 on the horizon, that were really a generation beyond what people were doing on console.

Now it's pretty much interchangeable.

This sounds a lot like "good old days" syndrome talking.

I KNOW. What I said was that I miss it when it was the other way. It was awesome always having the new tech to look forward to. Every E3 was like fucking Christmas.

Who looks forward to games that they can't afford to play because the hardware is too expensive?

[Stark]

It's pretty fascinating to call FEAR a generation beyond consoles when it was a console game; it just lost some post and the advanced shadows in the move... excatly the kind of shit 80% of people wouldn't notice. FEAR's shadows were inefficient anyway, but at least it gave people with 7800s something to do.

But yeah it's pretty clearly 'back when I was a kid the games industry was a hive of wonder and amazement'.

[adam_grif]

Stark, it was developed on PC then ported to console a year later. The 360 came out a month after, with the PS3 another year after that.

So, it was a generation ahead for an entire 30 day period!

Who looks forward to games that they can't afford to play because the hardware is too expensive?

When you upgrade your PC, there's a window where you can max out most of the settings on new games coming out. It also helped that I was a young stupid kid and didn't know what AA/AF was, and therefore never used them

This sounds a lot like "good old days" syndrome talking.

It's not like I'm saying "rarr games were better in my day", just that I prefer the way things happened. It's not an opinion that they used to push the technology back then.

[Stark]

I don't get it; was it ported a year into development or a year after release?

I used to look forward to getting a new card to push all settings to max and ogle games... then games fell so far behind hardware there was nothing. from 1998 to 2007 we went from what... Thief to Crysis? It just doesn't matter anymore.

[adam_grif]

I don't get it; was it ported a year into development or a year after release?

F.E.A.R. was released on PC in October 2005, it was then ported to 360 by a different studio and released in October 2006, and then to PS3 sometime in 2007.

I used to look forward to getting a new card to push all settings to max and ogle games... then games fell so far behind hardware there was nothing. from 1998 to 2007 we went from what... Thief to Crysis? It just doesn't matter anymore.

That's exactly the point though isn't it? If you've purchased a card since 2008 there's no reason for you to upgrade, now or in the foreseeable future. Starcraft 2 / Diablo 3 could probably run on a Commodore 64 if you turned it down to low, and every other game is just a console port.

It's not horrible, but I did like it the other way more. It's not like you couldn't play new games without brand new shit, you just turned it down to medium and shit. Shit, I'm still running a processor from 2005 and it runs fine with modern games. It's not even dual core.

[Sarevok]

Whats wrong with stability ? Consider the state of computer gaming in 1997. You just got a awesome computer with a Pentium Pro CPU, 32 MB ram and 4 mb Diamond stealth graphics card for 1500 USD. Your PC makes your jaw drop when you play all the great games coming out. Then one year later Pentium 2 and MMX and AGP hits the market. Suddenly you require a 8 MB graphics card and a 300 MHZ CPU to even attempt a new game. You enjoyed breathtaking experience of Mechwarrior 2 Mercs in 1998. In 1999 Mechwarrior 3 is nigh unplayable on your ancient rig. Once again you must spend a 1000 USD sack of cash to play new games.

Flash forward to today. If you got a xbox you are good for years to come. If you got a decent PC in 2008 you can still enjoy games released this year.

Frankly I am happy my expensive computers no longer turn useless in a year anymore.

[adam_grif]

1 year obsolescence? I wasn't into hardware in 1998, but I never experienced anything like that. You needed to upgrade every 18 - 24 months, and get a totally new PC every ~4 years or so. Even without that, you just couldn't set things to high, you ran it on medium, or low if your PC was >3 years old.

[General Zod]

It's not like I'm saying "rarr games were better in my day", just that I prefer the way things happened. It's not an opinion that they used to push the technology back then.

You're claiming that they're somehow not pushing technology as much based on . . .very little. Right now the focus is on 3d tech more than photorealism. (Especially when photorealism isn't even suited to most games.)

[Sarevok]

1 year obsolescence? I wasn't into hardware in 1998, but I never experienced anything like that. You needed to upgrade every 18 - 24 months, and get a totally new PC every ~4 years or so. Even without that, you just couldn't set things to high, you ran it on medium, or low if your PC was >3 years old.

It was pretty bad in the 1997 to 2002 time frame. There is huge difference between a Pentium 2 from 98 and a pentium 1 from 97. The Pentium 2 based computers were first with features everyone take for granted. Did you know you could not turn off a Pentium 1 computer without physically turning off the switch ? That they had no usb or AGP card slots ? All those modern features arrived like a storm in last 2 years of the 90s.

Game developers followed this sudden spike in hardware. A good home PC in 97 could have a 166 MHZ CPU and 32 MB Ram. In 2000 the bleeding edge was pentium 3s and Athlons running at 933 MHZ iirc. Just take a look at recommended requirements for games released in the time period. It was a time of great excitement but also great uncertainity as you knew that your amazing gaming rig had a life measured in months.

[MKSheppard]

It's consolitis that's killing PC Gaming.

Look at Op Flashpoint 2 -- it's 2009; and we have an absurd fucking spawn limit in the game (63 units), to avoid ruining the experience on consoles (512 MB on 360; 256 MB on PS3).

This results in such absurdities as you calling down fire on a village to suppress possible enemy units there in advance of your arrival; and as you approach the village; the undamaged enemy units in the village spawn into existance, and at the same time, enemy units elsewhere on the map despawn to avoid overloading the poor little consoles' memory.

And while the consoles do continue to get refreshed, e.g. the newer consoles run cooler and have bigger hard drives than the originals -- they can't get a memory boost; because then the console market would split into half -- new games that would only run on the newer consoles and older games that can run on all systems.

[MKSheppard]

Actually, I'd like to restate my earlier statement about Consolitis.

While it's a major, and important part of the malaise affecting PC gaming, due to arbitrarily restricting the scope of multi-platform games; it's the explosion of MMOs and the piles of moneybags that are perceived to be made from them that has been really hurting PC Gaming.

The major gaming development houses and smaller tier houses have a finite amount of money to allocate for gaming R&D each year; and they'll chase whatever is the most popular at the time -- look at how fast FPSes proliferated in the 1990s -- it seemed like every week introduced some NEW SHINY FPS which would have some KILLER feature.

[General Zod]

Funny you should mention FPS games. If you ignore the games on this list that are defunct and no longer being produced, there have been a whopping 80+ fps games released since 2006. http://games.teamxbox.com/index/xbox-360/by-genre/9/

[Ritterin Sophia]

Wait, Shep, you're claiming it's the consoles fault we're limited to arbitrarily small groups of players? Are you familiar with MAG? The idea to use separate servers for different parts of a map has long been the staple of MMOs, yet it's a console game that's the first to use it for an FPS?

[MKSheppard]

Are you familiar with MAG?

Because you know, the biggest map in MAG is 1km2 according to the developers; while OFP2's map is about 270+ km2? And that MAG can simply offload much of the memory footprint etc required to run an AI onto humans since it's a MMOFPS.

[Stark]

That's totally irrelevant to your team size limit claim, Shep.

The idea that it's a problem for the PC market that more worthless niche games like OFP aren't made is so myopic it's not funny. Shep not having a clue about something he loudly declaims on?

[open_sketchbook]

All you people talking about how graphics haven't jumped in quality lately, there is a very real reason for that. The more complex a game's appearence gets, the more man-hours you need to put in. The industry is hitting a point where games cost so much money to develop that the concept of the platform exclusive game is rapidly becoming obsolete; they need as wide a market as possible because they need to pay for a huge team of specialists to do every little detail. I think the game industry has more or less hit the point where the only thing that's going to get substancially better is automated processes, at least for the next little while.

The modding community, which is often brought up as an facet of PC gaming's superiority, has felt this trend hard; there are so few non-tweak mods for high-end games because a small team of part-timers aren't enough to build a game anymore. A lot of modders refuse to move past, say, Generals and Half-Life 2 because making art for new games just takes to damn long. Hell, with our own mod we require a team large enough that I can't quite keep track of who's on it, and we're working with an engine that is deliberately low-end and heavily stylized. The guys that work on the high-end shooter engines have tales of asset-building that sound like scary campfire stories to us. I have trouble picturing the man-hours and money that go into building a modern game from the ground up.

[Stark]

Who could have guessed that better art costs more money?

You don't say?

From a certain perspective it's arguable that console programmers are forced to be more efficient with limited resources (particularly memory etc) and even pretty terrible games on PC often have far higher requirements than you might think (and giant memory holes).