I agree with alot of what you've said.

I really think that in part what's hurting the PC gaming world is, like you've said, limited genres. There's this thinking that "this is the way you make PC games, END OF STORY!!" amongst programmers. What you get is basically the same game(s) over and over. It seems as though console gamers are more free to use thier imaginations.

Also like you've said, to play alot of the newer games you need either to massively upgrade your machine or buy a new computer. My 800 mhz AMD Athlon 256mb SDRAM and 64mb NVidia GeForce 2 is rapidly becoming antiquated. I was interested in playing the new Thief game. But I looked at the specs and my machine wouldn't even come close to running it. And for the price it would cost me to upgrade my machine (motherboard, new OS, more RAM) it would be more cost effective to buy an XBox. Also if I did upgrade my machine there's still no guaruntee that the game will run.

I really think PC programmers need to start allowing themselves to be more creative. If the market keeps shrinking for them it may be a matter of necessity.

Obiously people big into PCs and technology that keep there machines updated (both hardware and drivers) and what not have less issues with getting games to run right out of the box.

But most people don't fit into that category.

I think the survey might be a little misleading. I mean how many of the people that said they play PC game only play Solitaire and Minesweeper? The percentage that actually play normal PC game might be much smaller.

I think thats a misconception that seems to come from people that are primarily console users... like i've said in another thread, that's the equivalent of saying that consoles only have Sports, 3d Adventure/Platformers, and Japenese RPG's while PC games are only comprised of First Person Shooters, Strategy Games, and online RPGs. There's as much creativity from the PC side of things as there is on the console side.

Upgrading/Patches/Crashes is the biggest problem with PC gaming... and its simply unavoidable considering the vast amounts of different hardware configurations and cluttered software that people install. Personally, i don't mind it, and its a small sacrifice to get the best looking games.

I haven't updated my video card drivers since March... before that, it was more like 8 months. Maybe if you guys didn't install gator and bonzai buddy and weatherbug and if you didn't try to run a game while Kazaa is downloading porn and Norton Systemworks is fucking up your system you wouldn't have so many problems with crashing games. It's seriously been several years since I've had problems with crashing and patching... with the exception of some Counterstrike and Enemy Territory crashes (but both games were free, so you won't see me complain). I mean, no offense, but I can't really think of any other reason why people keep talking about constant crashing and patching as if it's a daily event. PC gaming really isn't all that difficult. I've had the same video card since 2001 and it handled Far Cry like butter and the Doom 3 alpha worked fine. It's just now starting to get long in the tooth and I'll have to upgrade this winter when HL2 and some others come out - and that's only if I want to see all the new shiny effects... otherwise, it would probably handle it.

Such as? While I don't follow the PC gaming market as much as I used to, the games that most people are regarding as the "good" games are either FPS or RTS titles. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. For people who are seriously into FPS and RTS games, a good PC will suit them well, as there's plenty to choose from.

Admittedly, I don't follow the PC market nearly as much as I used to, but could you point me in the direction of a good arcade-style racing game, or a 3d platformer or 3d adventure title that isn't already available on the consoles? Or maybe a fighting game?

I think what's happening is that the development for certain genres is being more focused on the platforms where they do better. Genres like racing, fighting, platformers, adventures, etc tend to work better on the console, as those games work better on a controller than a keyboard. Sure, racing games technically work better with a wheel/pedal setup, but those are an added expense, which would reduce the customer base. First person and RTS games work best with a mouse/keyboard setup, which is why the majority of games in those genres are made for the PC. That's all fine by itself, but my problem with those two genres is that they tend to all feel too similar to each other. Sure, the environments are different, the weapons are different, the interface is different, but the basic control tends to be too similar. Compare this to the more console-centric genres. Virtua Fighter, Tekken, Soul Calibur, and Super Smash Brothers are all fighting games, and they all feel like entirely different games, not the same game with different characters and arenas.

I agree. I've never had much of a problem with crashes and stuff in PC games, and having downloadable demos is a great way to try before you by...

Speaking of which, what's with certain developers not releasing demos of their titles? I'm surprised that DICE hasn't released a demo for Battlefield:Vietnam yet, especially considering how excellent word of mouththe Wake Island BF1942 demo got for that game. The same goes for Doom 3. When a company isn't confident enough in their product to release a demo on a platform where downloadable demos are commonplace, it really doesn't instil the consumer with a whole lot of confidence.

Just because a game is a FPS or RTS doesn't mean there isn't creativity to be found within them. Deus Ex or the Thief series all brought something new in terms of gameplay. But as far as innovation over the last few years... Black and White. The Sims. Something like Freedom Force. The new game Evil Genius (demo just released). Adventure games like Syberia or The Longest Journey. "American" style RPG's like Baldur's Gate. Turn based strategy like Civilization III.

It seems to me like console users think that just because Nintendo comes out with a game like Pikmin that consoles are full of innovation and creativity.

There aren't really any, but i'm not sure why thats relevent. I don't see why a game being available on both a console and PC matters. Especially when i can play... say Need for Speed: Underground or Colin McRae Rally with both games looking better on my PC then you can on your Xbox or PS2. Has nothing to do with my comment about creativity among PC's and consoles.


Doom 3 feels a lot different from Call of Duty, which feels a lot different from Thief and different from Painkiller. They feel like different games to me.

But i agree, each platform is certainly aimed toward certain genres that suit them best. Of course, i have a gamepad for my PC and play Sports and Racing games just fine on my computer.


It's not a matter of confidence, its a matter of time and money. For example with Doom 3, the developers were working on finishing the game first rather then waste time putting together a demo (which they're working on now).

To a degree that's true. But what I have found is that alot of those games make me feel too "removed" from the action. Freedom Force I did enjoy. But the Sims I found boring. There was alot of what I'd call "micro-managment". I felt like was an accountant and not playing a game. Alot of the strategy genre suffers from that. Right click here to create more farmland, move the toolbar an eighth of an inch to the left to allocate more resources. Just too much of that for my liking.


Actually games like Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto, and Resident Evil make me think that consoles are full of innovation. I have yet to find a game as ground breaking as any of those three on a PC. Maybe I'm not playing the right games. But it's yet to surface.


One of the problems is that "feel" can't be accuratley displayed on the back of a box. I've played Call of Duty, and you're right it does feel like a different kind of shooter. But when the game was first released and I saw it was a first person shooter, that sucked alot of the enthusiasm I had for the game right out of me. First person shooters are my least favorite genre. So naturally when I turn over a box and see that gun extended at the bottom of the screen, I'm more apt to put the box back on the shelf than not. Thief was different but I thought it wasn't very good. Stealth games in first person just don't work in my opinion.

Well we can at least agree on that.

Sounds like you've been pretty lucky. I consider myself capable and I can do anything up to a full computer assembly but I've never had a pc that I would consider 100% reliable. Spent most of the last 6 months playing Galaxies and probably one in three sessions would end in a blue screen. I wasn't alone based on posts in the forums. To even get the game to be stable at all required a clean install of windows. Then I found that the latest catalyst driver wasn't compatible so I had to revert back etc....

PC games aren't the only ones that crash though. I remember playing mariokart 64 and how it used to freeze up a fair bit and thinking that it was the first time I'd ever seen a console game really crash. These days crashes in xbox and ps2 games seem quite frequent as well (twice in KOTR).

I'll toss my hat into the "I never have any real problems playing PC games." As long as I install the patches, everything works just fine for me. The only problems I've had recently have been ISP related, which would affect console internet play as well.

Makes sense... that's just personal preference though. I don't care for The Sims either. I was simply pointing out games that were "different" on the PC, which shows that there are plenty of games that aren't just a FPS or RTS. Just like there are plenty of games on consoles that arent RPG's or Platformers.

Well the GTA series originated on the PC.... while they were 2d, a lot of the elements were similar. I'd say Doom or Quake were pretty ground breaking. I'm not sure if the PSX or PC version of Tomb Raider came out first, but the fact that games like Quake and Tomb Raider circa 1996 ushered in 3d acceleration, both of those are ground breaking from a technological stand point (regardless of which version came out first, the PC version was far better graphically thanks to bilinear filtering). Myst is up there whether you like that sort of thing or not. I'd say the same goes for The Sims... again, like it or not. More recently... Everquest (and i suppose Ultima Online) bringing in the MMORPG craze.


I'd say thats the case regardless of console or PC. And again, that's just your personal preference against FPS games. The "feel" of any game, regardless of the platform is on should be hard to gauge. I can see how it would be difficult to distinguish one WWII shooter over another... but in the same vein, you could argue that a lot of 3d Platform/Action games are the same except with a different colorful character as the star.

Anyway, i have no qualms with people who prefer one gaming platform over another or particular genres over another. I just think its incredibly naive to think that PC's lack innovation and only play a certain type of games.

I think now though, the main innovation(s) on the PC are coming in terms of technical and graphical capabilities. If you look at some games, the specs are off the chart and you'd probably need a really high end machine to run alot of them. That's just something I've noticed quite a bit latley.

I believe every one of those games is available for the PC.

My point was that Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, and Grand Theft Auto (though originally developed for the PC, GTA3 took off on the PS2) were revolutionary and innovative being developed primarily for consoles.

I'd agree with that. I'd say most of the technical advances are led by the PC... which is a plus given the static nature of consoles and the upgradability of PC's.

But in particular, of the 3 games you mentioned, MGS, GTA, and Resident Evil... you could generalize all of them as 3rd person action games. If you want to credit each game for doing something new (say MGS for being tactical, RE for survival/horror, GTA for open endedness), then you can also credit specific First Person Shooters for introducing something new. Credit Thief for introducing stealth, Deus Ex for RPG elements, Half-Life for AI or revolutionizing the importance of mods. Undying brought horror to the genre. They're all first person, but all very different. Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto, and Resident Evil are all 3rd person and all very different.

Exactly. Both PCs and consoles have their genres that they are dominant in (i.e. FPS and RTS on PC, Platformers and Jap RPGs on console) so some people that don't play one or the other over generalize to mean that these platforms only have those genres.

Same type of thing within genres. Someone like me who doesn't like FPS's can't see the differences and innovations in the genre, while I can appreciate the differences in platformers while someone who hate's them probably cannot.

The thing is PC has never been a matter of flooding you with games. They don't have to flood you with 10 games and only have 1 of them actually be good like Playstation needs to. They only release quality and it takes time to release them.

Not to mention that those games that are released have a life span of years. Shit, star craft is still played in a large community. How old is that game and it's still getting good quality. Counter Strike as well. Toss in a new source engine and it's a brand new product pretty much. PC games have much longer life spans of playability because of that mod community.

PC gaming has always been a lesser market simply because a PC is good for other things. A console without games becomes a large paper weight.