The Glade 4.0

I dunno, Raziel, I think they are largely apples and oranges. Console does its thing very well, and PC does its thing very well. To each their own and all that.

I believe that you sir, have misunderstood the point of the internet. Also, your mother is promiscuous and rumored to be of above average weight. Burn!

As the software and technology used in consoles and PCs start to converge we'll start seeing viruses on consoles, more crashes and bigger software bugs.

_________________

Consoles can always match PC output -- sometimes even surpass it!-- at the time of the first release of the console. The current generation of consoles are what, 3 years old? 4?

The PC you can buy today is better than the PC you could buy last week. They are upgraded incrementally and constantly. Consoles will NEVER be able to match that. Console technology is always very much a snapshot of where the technology was at the time the first version of any one family was released. (New models of PS3s are not appreciably different than the first models of PS3s, apart from more drive space and/or fixed bugs.)

Of course, the upside, is they don't go obsolete as quickly, nor is console gaming nearly as expensive a hobby.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I agreed with everything up to this point. The cost of a new game release is fairly consistent across platforms. It is only more expensive either way based on your prefernces. I for onehave only purchased two titles for my PS3 near release cost (Assassin's Creed for me and Aerosmith Guitar Hero for my wife) and that was when I bought the PS3. I now have half a dozen more titles, but only because I have pciked them up for less than $10 each. The same goes for my PC games, in general I don't spend money on new titles, I wait until they come to the $5 or $10 bin and play through them then.

However I have a number of console friends that have to have every new game, especially all the sports games, as soon as they are released, which are $50-$80 a pop. Again, it goes to gaming preferences and choices on how you spend the money, but I don't see how anyone can claim console gaming as not nearly as expensive as PC gaming unless you are comparing something other than titles.

_________________
Gorse

Game price has nothing to do with it, nor does your friend buying a lot of games as anecdotal evidence. If he snatched up release games on the PC he'd be spending just as much.

The point Tayla was getting at, was hardware cost. A top of the line gaming PC is most certainly more expensive than a top-of-the-line console.

With the $1200-$2500 cost for a gaming computer, compared to the $300 cost for a console, you've gotta make up $900-$2000 cost difference with game titles. (And that's assuming you're not upgrading the PC.)

You cannot count the price of the games in their entirety. One assumes the PC Gamer is going to buy as many game titles as the console gamer, assuming the same level of interest in the hobby. So what you have to compare is the difference in cost between PC and Console games. Ignoring exclusives (which every platform has), it's fairly easy. Dragon Age, for example, costs generally $10 more for PS3 or XBox than it does for the PC. Most titles seem to hold to this (it's the licensing fee the companies pay to Sony/Microsoft to develop games for them.)

To make up the $900 cost difference, you need to buy 90 games.

That's a lot of games, and that's a very low end gaming PC.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Okay so to sum it all up, the controls of a PC offer much more variety than consoles, and so far historically the depth and diversity of PC games is superior to console games. Is there an equivalent of a Baldur's Gate 2 for the consoles? Or countless other games...strategy games? Any type of game? Are superior strategy games even being made for consoles?

This doesn't really even seem like an argument to me, seriously. I'm a PC "elitist" only because those who realize they're standing on inferior ground must resort to name-calling, and peg the word "elitist" to their opposition, just like so many random politicians use the word "elitist".

But unfortunately we're a dying breed, and we are in a race towards the bottom in so many ways. Okay wait, I realize I've veered off course and got way too serious for this gaming thread.

Speaking of inferior ground... Today, I load up BG2, and I get annoyed at its arcane rules and easily-broken combat within the first couple hours.

Everything has evolved since then. Console and PC. Holding up Baldur's Gate 2 just proves to me how the evolution of gaming has favored the console over the PC.

_________________


Grenade 3 Sports Drink. It's fire in the hole.. Your hole!

Baldur's Gate II is your argument? Give me a break. Aside from the fact that nothing you'd consider "better" has come out on the pc either (else you'd give a different title example), BG II is not even a game type well-suited to consoles in the first place.

As far as strategy games, how about the FF Tactics series? One of the most-loved tactics games in the history of the genre. Not on a PC. Or are you referring to RTS games?

Fighting games? Unless you buy a controller (negating the difference), they're superior on consoles.

RPG's? How about all of the Final Fantasy games, or Dragon Quest series. Not available on PC outside a few installments.

Truth of the matter is that PC controls only shine in two or three game types- FPS, RTS and point-and-click action games.

I'm sorry, the most beloved tactics game is FF Tactics? Here, I thought it was X-COM: UFO Defense.

Silly me.

And, let's be honest here -- fighting games are best controlled on their arcade cabinets, or if you buy an arcade stick as a peripheral -- a peripheral you could buy for your PC, as well, if the developers hadn't long ago realized that people would "settle" for a console controller rather than buy a cabinet or arcade stick extra, and stopped making them for the PC.

And I think it's hilarious that Final Fantasy games are called RPGs. It's so, so cute. "JRPGs", well, aren't. They're boring adventure games with no puzzles and some tacked on special attack collection-based "combat."

Truth is, consoles stole all their strengths from superior platforms, and are simply the Least Common Denominator for game development today.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Why ya gotta hate on consoles?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Such a good game, I've never even heard of it.

Fighting game argument is a draw, I'll give you that. Both systems need a fight stick to be optimal, but baseline controller vs kb/mouse, console wins.

Claiming rpg/jrpg games don't have puzzles or challenges is just plain ignorant. Also, using those as requirements doesn't even make sense. Role Playing Games have you take command of one/multiple characters, get into their shoes, and watch their tale unfold. Combat, puzzles and exploration are irrelevant.

Wait what? Really?

...

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

No, it's such a good game, it's on GameSpy's Top 25 PC Games of All Time (not ranked as this feature, compiled last October, did not rank its top 25), topped the lists at IGN's Top 25 PC Games of All Time (as compiled March 2007) and IGN's Top 25 PC Games of All Time (as compiled in July 2000), and holds #21 in IGN's Top 100 Games of All Time (compiled in December, 2007), and also #12 in IGN's Top 100 Games of All Time (compiled in 2005). It's reviewed highly on Gamespot (9.4), especially when considering that the review dates back to the mid-90's, before lots of sites started inflating review scores, and gaming mags were happy to blast games instead of wimping out with 62's or whatever. It was also a perennial favorite at Computer Gaming World before it closed shop.

Clearly, this much beloved and widely lauded game's obscurity and notoriety (even as late as sixteen years since its release isn't the problem, but rather, the breadth of your expertise in the tactical strategy game genre.


I never said they were relevant to RPGs, I said they were the only missing elements that distinguish JRPGs from western adventure games -- linear games that purport to focus on telling an engaging and immersive story rather than reward twitchy gameplay reflexes. Your definition of a Role Playing Game includes all shooters in the last decade, for instance, and thus, by my estimation, is entirely useless. Role Playing Games are games which favor a heavy narrative, feature different "classes" for the player to choose from, pose choices in how to progress or advance to the player, and call for the player to engage conflicts via an upgradable stat-based resolution system in which character attributes and a variety of equippable items come into play. JRPGs fail this test, IMO, by a) offering very few choices in progression (they fall back on the adventure-game style illusion of choice by making you search around for the proper place to advance the linear progression), b) lock individual characters into specific classes and advancement paths, including the protagonist, and c) offer very limited item combinations (frequently, for instance, items will be specific to a character). They essentially, then, lack the characteristics that I feel best differentiate traditional RPG gameplay from adventure gaming, and yet fail to offer several of the most engaging aspects of adventure gaming, as well.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Classes have nothing to do with RPGs.

_________________
Los Angeles Kings 2014 Stanley Cup Champions

"I love this **** team right here."
-Jonathan Quick

Instead of giving an opinion on what makes a good RPG, or how good a strategy game is, why not discuss how X-Com did anything that would not be possible on a console, story or control-wise? How could a developer make a deeper RPG experience on a PC than they could on a console? Choices, classes, narrative, progression - none of these things have anything to do with control schemes, which is ultimately what this thread boils down to.

Well, you offered nothing of the sort in your statement that FF:Tactics was the definitive game of the genre, and therefore consoles represented it best, so I figured that wasn't really what we were talking about.

It's a mouse interface. Radar spots a UFO, you click on the blip on your globe to dispatch a fighter to shoot it down. You shoot it down, you drag and drop equipment to your guys' inventories before sending them out into the field. You send them out into the field, you click where you want them to go, what you want them to shoot. Dragging the cursor around grid-block by grid-block would be the epitome of tedious (as it was, from my understanding, when they ported it to the Playstation two years later).

More recently, Valkyria Chronicles tried a similar system, except it had you zoom down to each character and control them in an over-the-shoulder camera/movement scheme to get around this, which, while passable, was more time intensive and tended to detach you from the big picture and team interactions more.

As for RPGs on console vs. PC? Much the same, actually. Compare my above comments on movement to, say, NeverWinter Nights or Baldur's Gate, or let me borrow briefly from action-RPGs and ask you how well you think you'd like managing inventory in Diablo on a console controller, and whether you think the game would lose something if you replaced it with a Dragon Age inventory system. Now, tell me whether you think that RPGs are good candidates for user-created content, and how well that works out for you on consoles.

Oh, and one more thing I forgot to touch on earlier:

FF7 was available on the PC, and I didn't hear anybody moaning about the controls being inadequate. The only reason subsequent ones weren't is because Sony wasn't gonna let its star exclusive go non-exclusive. Likewise, the KotORs, Morrowind, Dragon Age: Origins, and Fallout 3 (oh, and Daggerfall and Fallouts 1 and 2 were PC games, not SNES or PSX games, too -- you're welcome?).

And in closing, let me throw out a genre nobody's mentioned that PCs dominate on, and that the decline of PC gaming has seen has caused to almost die out: Flight Sims.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

It's not about what control is adequate or inadequate, it's about what's best. I played FF7 extensively on both PC and console, and the console control was without a doubt more fluid and enjoyable. Much as PC shooters are more fluid and enjoyable.

I've already acknowledged that a mouse/kb controls fps, rts and point-and-click games better. My argument is that a keyboard and mouse is not the end-all, be-all control scheme, and that PC and Consoles both have control advantages in different areas.

I had Xcom on PS1. Worked like a dream. Was brutally difficult for my 13 year old non strategist mind, but it controlled flawlessly.

And if adequate is acceptable for you re:FFVII, then consoles do in fact have a reasonable amount of flight combat games.

_________________


Grenade 3 Sports Drink. It's fire in the hole.. Your hole!

Did they ever port Starcraft or Warcraft I, II or III to a console or Civilization I-600?

_________________

They ported Starcraft to the Nintendo 64. It was bad, from what I've heard.

_________________
Los Angeles Kings 2014 Stanley Cup Champions

"I love this **** team right here."
-Jonathan Quick

To be fair, no he didn't claim it was the definitive game of the genre...



What he said is true. FF Tactics is one of the most loved tactics game. X-Com is another one of the most-loved tactics games. They both rock. =)

And it was like 2 or 3 years after it came out on PC. Basically, everybody who wanted to play StarCraft already played it on the PC.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Final Fantasy compared to PC RPGs is a joke. Of course, I despise the entire FF franchise, but i don't know how anyone can compare them. The much loved FF7 was crap compared to even old Ultima series (for DOS!) games on PC, let alone greats from this decade.

You want an apples-to-apples comparison? Dragon Age --the best RPG I have ever played-- is fun on PS3 (where I first played it.) It is far, far superior on PC. (Similarly, the previous best --KOTOR--was far better on PC than on consoles.)

Consoles have their place, but lets not pretend console RPGs can for a second even try to compete with PCs.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █