It’s interesting, I get a lot of interview questions sent to me from the media that ask when such and such game will be on the console. The answer is usually: never.
I like my consoles. My kids like them. But I’m a greedy capitalistic bastard who wants to make money. And for the large scope strategy games I design it means the PC.
If I was making an action game or a first person shooter, I’d likely make it for the console. The RPG we have in pre-production (very early pre-production) is targeting consoles as well as the PC. So I’m not some sort of PC zealot. I just don’t see how I can make the kind of strategy game that *I want to play* on the console without gimping it to the point that it would ruin the game and thus be a financial disaster.
Let’s consider the specs on my favorite console, the XBOX 360.
It is essentially a custom PC running a 3-core PowerPC from 5 years ago. It has 512MB of total RAM that it has to also share with the ATI designed graphics system.
Now, eventually there will be a new generation of consoles that will be much more powerful than this. But by that time, 64-bit PC games will start coming out that will be able to address many GIGS of RAM (virtual or real) resulting in games that can look lifelike AND have the kind of scope that PC strategy gamers tend to embrace (and from our vantage point more importantly – buy).
There are strategy games being made for the PC. Supreme Commander 2 is due out shortly and Chris Taylor is certainly a more experienced game designer than I am so maybe he’s figured out a way to make it work. But *I* can’t see how to make it work. Not for the kinds of strategy games I want to play.
Stardock making an RPG doesn't sound right to me. MMORPG? Single player RPG? I'm sure you can sell me on it =P
i fully agree with your sentiments, Brad. I don't even own a console, though I'm happy to play at a friend's house. But strategy games just play SO much better on the PC. When you think about input mechanisms and upgradeability, the PC clearly rules for strategy games.
Then there's the user controls. I can't imagine using an XBox 360 control for a strategy game. If the Wii was more powerful, the Wiimote would be great as a controller for a strategy game, but as it is now it'd be a very limited scope.
Talk about Wiiarm if you're playing an RTS with that thing...
I don't mind that RPG being PC and consoles. Not knowing what it's about and what it'll try to achieve, I'd only ask for good interface for PC. I'm going to suppose that inmersive story, fun, choices and action are already considered a must in addition to that.
I have enjoyed consoles but actually their games are more expensive, allow null moddability, I can play MoM in my PC...
Natal could provide some interesting ways of controlling a strategy game. Unfortunately, you'd still have issues rendering large amounts of text and fine details that are required with most games in the genre.
With the rate graphics techniques are consuming memory, the small, linear increases in memory we'll be seeing won't be enough. It's all about streaming in just the required amount of data and procedurally generating that content on the GPU itself while rendering. Having "gigs 'o ram" to resolve the problem is laughable.
Pics or it didn't happen.
hehehehe..
seriously, this type of doing is taking it's damage on the PC: Look at the new Alien vs. Predator game; cleary made for console, but "fitted" for PC: so you got to hold a button to pick something up, but the same button, when only tapped, helps to open doors..no prone position, jumping is resuming itself to "Hold X button to climb" instead of you know, jumping over at 6 inch blank that's blocking yours way.
(Granted, only palyed the demo, not a good general idea, but with the sheer fun-sucking entity that was, I'm not putting my faith on the real game) I don't care if a game on PC on console, just don't make a "bastard" copy of a PC game for console and vice-versa.
Certain games make work well on consoles, but even then they seem limited. Ones I've played on console, even specifically made for consoles you start to see how much more expansive the game could of been if it had been on PC. FPSs is one that I don't think will ever be just as good as or better on consoles. As long as your playing against others on consoles your good, but the minute someone has mouse and keyboard they will be raping your ass. And games that are ported to PC after the fact. OMG, they should of just left well enough alone and not even tried if they were too lazy to make a proper PC version.
There's something about consoles and developers/publishers that I've never come to understand: Why would you ever make an "epic real-time-strategy game" for a console with such a limited control scheme? *coughs and points to supreme commander* It makes no sense whatsoever, about the only thing you could hope for with the words "epic", "strategy", and "console" in the description is a turn-based-strategy-game. Look at Valkyria Chronicles, it works very well with the console, in addition that it adds some fps qualities to it.
As much as I prefer PC as well, consoles are still good. Just don't venture far into FPS territory with it, stick to PC for that.
Ever since I got my new pc in August(I think)... ya havent touched my 360 that much... I think Im at almost two months now. Also my New PS3 for almost a month(well I watch movies on it.) Then again I have been working full time too... so ya...
PC is just to much fun...
Why would you have to explain yourself on pcs versus consoles? Consoles are a group fun thing. Pcs are better at a solo experience.
If friends are here, I play my 360 with them. I play my ps3 with... female friends in my bedroom. But if I'm looking for the best experience, I play my eyefinity setup.
Wait... what? rpg?? What setting is it going to be?
Please put in an action combat system, and not another tiresome slow combat rpg. Mass effect 2 was so refreshing because it used a fun combat system, and so was borderlands. Im sick and tired of developers deciding rpg combat should be slow and boring.
I really do think the PC’s days are numbered if not as a platform entirely, as a platform that’s unique and different from the consoles. How many titles these days are something other than cross-platform developments, which basically boils down to PCs getting whatever is capable on the modern console? More and more titles I buy are riddled with leftover console design choices, and its really quite depressing. Its getting to the point where there’s almost no advantage in PC gaming, other than better graphics (if we’re lucky) and better control options.
I want my PC games to stand on their own, not to be copy-pasted from whats being developed on the 360 or PS3. Sure, strategy titles remain dominant on the PC, but I like to play other genres too.
I like FPS's on consoles way more than PC. I think it has to do with what you're used to. I grew up on GoldenEye64 (my vote for the best shooter every, btw ). After years of playing FPS's with a controller, a mouse and keyboard feels foreign. The same goes for someone used to PC controls.
Yeah, the PC gamer can probably beat the console gamer, but if you're doing what's fun for you, who cares? When I play RTS's, I use a PC. When I play FPS's, I use a console.
I wore out buttons on quite a few controllers playing SSB.
I was a Kirby god, slightly less than invincible with the rest though...
The control setup on most of them just bugs the hell out of me, dual joysticks and such. It's nowhere near as comfortable as my keyboard. Even without the advantages in fps and strategy, I just flat haven't liked many of them at all. They've got the market for fighting games covered though.
I wonder if even the average console gamer is interested in such games to begin with. The combat system of Dragon Age is fairly simple even compared to Starcraft or CoH, let alone the 'heavyweights' of the genre like Sins or SupComm, yet nearly all console gamers I've seen dismissed it as 'slow and boring'. Even if you made it work or, hell, you went and bundled a mouse with the game, I don't think most console gamers would appreciate an Empire: Total War for their X360 or a Galactic Civilizations for the PS3. It's just... not their type of game, like most 'horror' action shooters like Silent Hill and Dead Space sell poorly on the PC compared to their console brethren, even if they handle just like any other FPS except with your hero's butt on-screen.
I share the same sentiments as DraekAlmasy. Those that game mostly on consoles are usually gamers who prefer the quick and easy setup of the system. This "quick and easy" preference (either for the more PC hardware illiterate or those who simply don't have the time, energy, nor interest to tinker with details) general carries over to their games of choice as well.
RTS with deep gameplay general requires a certain level of necessary commitment on the player's part before the depth of the game can be truly experienced. Many console gamers are looking for quick in/out fun and simply will not or cannot commit enough of their time and energy to a hardcore RTS for that euphoria of seeing how the intricate dynamics of the RTS game at work. For them, the trade off between commitment vs time is not worth it.
A developer might have to find a way to simplify their console RTS game enough to bring it closer to that "quick and easy fun" and thus make it accessible to said audience. If they planned to release it on both the console and PC, of course the PC version will be "simplified" along to match.
There are exceptions of course, but I suspect they are in the minority.
I don't mind consoles, there are some games I got use to playing on consoles yet I have a hard time playing on PCs even with a controller. GTA San Andreas and Vice City are 2 examples of games I can't play on PCs for some reason.
I prefer PC gaming because of the ability to add and modify the games. I can only imagine how awesome a game like Super Mario Brothers for the Wii would be if people could make new worlds (like maps for Call of Duty), new weapons or power-ups and even new bad guys. I also like being able to do more than one thing with my electronics. A PC can be more than a came console and I don't always have to worry about hogging the TV either as my kids do with the Wii. But it's all good in the end.
Did you guys see what M$ and Remedy said about Alan Wake? LOL
I mean LOL. Thats what I hate about the consoles, too closed - which goes against the customer (thats me, my 'vested' interest).
I don't mind Alan Wake not being on PC - its probably crap anyway after all these years of hype and delivering nothing. Im more annoyned about Gears 2 and Heavy Rain. But the dishonesty in thier statement was lengedary. It amounts to:
"Hey pc guys, you know how we said this was Vista/360 exclusive to sell Xboxs and Windows? And you know how Windows 7 is actually good and selling well? Well we don't want to put it on windows anymore. K?
Why? Well... errr.... Its... a very non-"intimate" experince where you need to be very ... far... away from the screen. Yeah. No the screen SIZE isn't important - don't be silly, we at microsoft know that your 20" running at 1920 x 1200 is higher detail and the same size in your view as the 40" TV futher back... emmmm..... its just that.... well. We don't want you to be too scared. Also the controls are very, ummm, precise. Yeah too precise for a mouse. And the graphics probably wounld't run on your 2008 PCs.
OH! Oh yeah, and PCs are better at the thing they do best. Probably. (Which isn't Alan Wake.)
Buy a 360 Pls."
Utter BS. Please developers if your going to shaft the PC, have the decency to actually tell us the real reason. Your profit marign would not be increased by the desired percentage from a PC version. Simple. Never gonna happen but still.
Incidently I have a 40" TV (1920x1080) as my PC monitor, about 3 feet away from me. Its very very VERY nice to play games on.
That's precisely what is wrong with the games industry today - so-called "journalists" who refuse to take their blinders off in order to realize there's a wonderful world of games designed solely for PC out there. Pro-console propaganda plus a massive marketing push for the Xbox/PlayStation brands (something that PC as a platform can only dream of) begins to pay off.
Oddly enough, if a certain game is console-only or a game developer spews utter nonsense about the PC, then everything's fine and dandy as far as they're concerned. After all, "PC gaming is so '90s and it has no games".
The "You're "anti-PC"? That's perfectly fine. You're "anti-console"? What is the meaning of this, explain yourself!" mentality needs to disappear.
So... Brad, are you bringing up console gamers or have you introduced them to PC gaming, too?
I don't think it's that obvious, such a choice should depend on the kind of experience one decides to strive for. For instance, military sims like Operation Flashpoint/ Arma II, shooters like Rainbow Six (no, not Lockdown or Vegas) are meant to be played on PC. Same for fast-paced titles like Quake/UT. Sure, it's possible to make them work on consoles to a certain extent, but what's the point?
So, how dumbed down is it compared to Fallout/Arcanum/Torment/Wizardry (to name just a few)?
Shame, this industry needs more of those.
Imagine Intel or AMD funding PC exclusives, using them to promote their products...
Yeah, too bad about that one. I was really looking forward to playing that on the PC.
While there most certainly are games that are a better fit for consoles/controllers (arcade, shmup, certain platformers, or anything making use of proprietary controllers, of course), I do all my dedicated gaming on my PC. Sure, the keyboard and mouse are multi-purpose, but in most games, it really helps having all those keys at your fingertips (assigning/recalling groups or utilizing hotkeys).
As far as hardware is concerned, there are most definitely two sides to the coin. An individual with a decent income and fairly good technical skills is optimally suited to game on the PC. PC game designers aren't nearly as limited when it comes to meeting hardware requirements, so if you have the latest and greatest hardware, it's really satisfying to play with all the settings turned up. Another benefit in this regard is also the fact that PC-versions of titles have the ability to use larger textures and take advantage of newer technologies offered by graphics cards. The one prevailing argument here is that with a console, you just stick in the game and turn on the power. It's not always that easy on the PC, though Win7 is definitely more of a step in that direction with it's super-fast load time and minimal hassle in a lot of its operation.
One disappointment I have is when a game is very obviously a port from a console version, like when the mouse is set up (with no cursor) to navigate various menus or in-game features.
I have to also say that with the exception of Goldeneye and Perfect Dark (great titles, both of which I was able to tolerate with a controller), fps' belong on the PC with a mouse and keyboard. I don't like seeing auto-aim in a lot of fps/rpg titles now; I feel labor could have been applied better. The problem with using a control stick is that you're moving a crosshair around relative to its previous position (small increments/decrements to the x/y axis). I don't see how there isn't a more unanimous preference to essentially having a 1:1 mapping of mouse:crosshair.
Mike
One of the worst offenders of consolitis I have seen in recent years was a game I was actually looking forward to playing awhile back. Saints Row 2. OMG, the horrid controls, buggy and they couldn't even be bothered to get rid of the analog stick graphic for switching weapons and such. That and the fact that first gen Xbox(not 360) games would laugh at the graphics even when maxxed out. I am glad now that Impulse didn't get it(like was at one time a possibility) and I waited to pay next to nothing for it. That's about all it's worth on the PC.
I was happy to see an article on Yahoo the other day promoting the PC as a gaming platform. Those types of promotions going out to people who might not otherwise PC game are too few and far between.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 was the greatest disappointment ever for me. As much as I like the game, the fact that it was made more for console people than PC people was heart breaking to me. Steam sucks when it comes to playing this game and so does IWNet. It has made this game impossible to fully enjoy as I have all the other Call of Duty games. But console players have no complaints cause it plays just like all the other COD games on consoles.
Honestly, I don't understand the console hype. Most of their specs were horribly dated from the day the generation took off, their only advantage being low startup cost, standardized hardware and the support of monolithic corporations. The "PC's are too expensive" argument doesn't hold water when you have a library of thirty games sitting next to your xbox and have been running subscription fees for the past three years. So really, the only reason I see to own a console is if you're into its exclusive titles.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
