PCs and Consoles and Clouds... Oh My!

[mummifiedstalin]

To me there's one important concern, as also mentioned by Jayel, that the PC is the only major gaming platform that is actually open.

...

Again, I don't say these things out of an opposition to consoles. I understand their importance in terms of convenience and a unified experience and an accessible format and input method. Those things are great. But they are also limiting in a way the PC, by its nature, is not.

A very good point. It also seems like a good reason to actually argue for a variety of different platforms for different purposes. Part of the problem now is that they're so very similar in some ways and then have problems with either connectivity or exclusivity or some other arbitrary problems.

[Jayel]

What I do find more troubling these days is that more and more game explicitly breaking gamepad support by hardwiring it to the xbox360 gamepad (which doesn't conform to the existing gamepad/joystick signals). I don't recall which game I wanted to play with my gamepad but couldn't get it to work because the game only accepted the xbox360 gamepad inputs. I could assign buttons and all, but the D-pad or analog sticks were simply ignored, because the xbox360 controller does that differently.

I can think of 2 games off the top of my head that had less than desirable gamepad support on PC: Prince of Persia (2008) and Braid.

Prince of Persia supported generic gamepads, but all the quick-time events were colour-coded presumably to xbox controller buttons, so whenever those coloured circles popped up on screen it was confusionfest.

Braid didn't support generic gamepads at all! In fact xbox360 controller for PC is the only game controller it supported. I think it was because Jon Blow didn't know how to create button icons for all the various controllers that had different layouts and labels. Pretty lame excuse to cut out gamepad support altogether, in my opinion.

[elmuerte]

flight sim games [...] benefit from the fact that there is a huge cluster of buttons at your disposal

I was always under the impression that my keyboard didn't have enough buttons to play flight sims.

I can't get the hang of WASD. I remember being a kid with an Atari 2600 and thinking there was NO FUCKING WAY I was ever going to get the hang of a d-pad after using that joystick for so long, but I eventually did, and I reckon WASD is analogous to that.

That's why I use ESDF instead of WASD

D-pad is great if you have movement only gameplay. But when you also need to aim you can't afford to waste fingers, which is what a gamepad does, which is partially caused by the D-pad design. Also, the WASD set up gives better control of the directions, which is why a lot of games switched to the analog stick for movement. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's playing a game that really needs an analog stick on a D-pad (like Mario64 on the NDS, or GTA on the NDS), it's just terrible.

[Cheetohands]

Great thread, Zomboid!

This is the how my gaming history worked itself out:

Arcades --> Intellivision --> Master System --> Genesis --> PC --> Dreamcast --> Xbox/Gamecube --> PS3/Wii.

I was a PC-only gamer from 93 to 99. In 93 alone it seemed there was a ton of great PC game releases! That was the year I bought a Soundblaster card and "Day of the Tentacle" which was my first PC game. During the next several years I spent a lot of money on graphics cards & motherboard/processor combos. I distinctly recall losing interest in PC gaming around the time the first Unreal came out. It wasn't that I didn't want to play the new era of super duper 3D games I just grew tired of constantly having to upgrade.

The Dreamcast got me back into console gaming and was probably my all-time favorite console. The first Xbox seemed like the Dreamcast's spiritual successor so I went that route with a Gamecube on the side. These days I'm gaming on the PS3 & Wii with a little PC gaming thrown in. I've wanted a 360 since launch but I'm still waiting until they work out the RROD thing. I just can't spend three or four hundred dollars on a system I'll most likely have to send in for repairs. To me it's the principle of the thing.

Day of the Tentacle, X-Wing, Ultima Underworld 2, X-COM: UFO Defense, Sam & Max Hit the Road, Privateer, Syndicate, Space Hulk, Doom, Lands of Lore, Master of Orion... what an amazing year 1993 was for PC gaming!

Edited July 21, 2009 by Cheetohands

[Jake]

I was always under the impression that my keyboard didn't have enough buttons to play flight sims.

True, my mistake.

[LOPcagney]

I can think of 2 games off the top of my head that had less than desirable gamepad support on PC: Prince of Persia (2008) and Braid.

Prince of Persia supported generic gamepads, but all the quick-time events were colour-coded presumably to xbox controller buttons, so whenever those coloured circles popped up on screen it was confusionfest.

Braid didn't support generic gamepads at all! In fact xbox360 controller for PC is the only game controller it supported. I think it was because Jon Blow didn't know how to create button icons for all the various controllers that had different layouts and labels. Pretty lame excuse to cut out gamepad support altogether, in my opinion.

I'd throw Assassin's Creed up on that list as well.

[Chris]

Also, you can use...keyboard & mouse on consoles and the Wii now has absolute positioning ah fuck it.

Well, not really. The PS3 technically supports mouse and keyboard in games (neither of the other two consoles do) but I'm pretty sure the number of developers that have actually implemented that is pretty close to zero. I know Unreal Tournament III has it, I don't know what else does. Maybe a couple other things.

And the Wii's pointer is sort of absolute positioning, but as somebody who was a big proponent of the system prior to and soon after its release, and now hardly ever uses it (but has still played a number of shooters on it), I am not one who thinks the pointer is an acceptable stand-in for the mouse. That's not to say it doesn't have other things it's good at, but as a straight-up pointer I think it's still too fiddly. The fact that the mouse actually rests still on a surface, and doesn't require effort or stabilization from the user to simply stay still, makes it massively better at that to me. When I try and keep the Wii pointer fixed on a point, I can feel myself developing RSI.

[gdf]

I think Wii shooters are meant to make up for accuracy and comfort in control with the novelty of actually holding something like a gun. I haven't played any, because apparently none have yet entirely succeeded, but I'm cautiously optimistic for Red Steel 2 based on the aesthetic and conceit.

Maybe they should just release it on PC with super high def visuals.

[blackboxme]

To the people that say PC gaming is expensive: I bought a Radeon 4670 for $80. I bought Mass Effect, Mirror's Edge, Far Cry 2, Tomb Raider, Fallout 3 and Orange Box on steam for $20 each, and the Relic superpack for like $40.

Edited July 22, 2009 by blackboxme

[Avalanche]

First post, but I decided I'd dive head first into the deep end.

Coming from a background of consoles and PCs, I've always leaned more towards my PC. I prefer the controls, I prefer the potential for mods if I really end up liking a game, I prefer the community in most cases and I like the idea that even 10 years down the road after I've upgraded my machine to something entirely new I can still play those old games I bought 10 years before and I don't have to depend on my machine from 10 years before, even if it takes a little work to get something running. There's more control in PC gaming, there's more options. If a piece of hardware starts to go bad, I can simply replace it with a trip to the store.

That said, I still play console games. Local gaming is far easier to achieve with consoles, huddling around a desk to play two player coop is pretty uncomfortable. Consoles are slowly catching up with digital distribution of retail games, something I've been spoiled by with steam. But mainly what it comes down to is I enjoy good games, and I'm not going to align myself with any single platform to make myself feel better about a purchasing decision. It's silly.

[LOPcagney]

To the people that say PC gaming is expensive: I bought a Radeon 4670 for $80. I bought Mass Effect, Mirror's Edge, Far Cry 2, Tomb Raider, Fallout 3 and Orange Box on steam for $20 each, and the Relic superpack for like $40.

Yeah, and keep in mind that people who buy consoles almost invariably buy computers as well, so tack on the price of a low-grade PC automatically to the cost of a console.

That said, I still play console games. Local gaming is far easier to achieve with consoles, huddling around a desk to play two player coop is pretty uncomfortable. Consoles are slowly catching up with digital distribution of retail games, something I've been spoiled by with steam. But mainly what it comes down to is I enjoy good games, and I'm not going to align myself with any single platform to make myself feel better about a purchasing decision. It's silly.

In my opinion, this is one of the best arguments in favor of console gaming: It is more social. Even online networking can't beat having both direct and virtual interactions with your opponents (or allies). I guess there's not really a market for local gaming on PCs, but it's one area where they are really lagging behind consoles. Ports of games like Halo could at least leave it in as an option for those who have the peripherals to support it (or maybe they do, I haven't checked).

[jneeriem]

I was a PC gamer from the dawn of Captain Keen and Descent and Wolfenstein 3-D until about 2005-2006ish. I still have a computer that I can use to play games on, but it became more convenient for me to just play my PS2, now XBOX 360 than to run my computer. Paired with having a laptop that doesn't run modern games anymore and a modded computer that has parts too advanced for its own good (Pre PCI-express). I'm pretty much a console gamer now.

Though I probably would have always been a console gamer, but my mom didn't believe in video games on the TV (seriously). So instead I just spend my afternoons on an old dell 386 tower. That was cool, we had this batch script that ran and listed all the games on the computer. As a little kid, all I had to do was type 9 and wolfenstein came up. Or 5 and it was Humans. Then we upgraded to Win 3.1 and it was Sim City 2000. My mom still has that computer. It also still runs everything. Until I got out of college, every advance I needed to play the latest and greatest game was funded by bank a la mom. Once I got out of college though, my 2003 $2000 laptop could no longer run the graphics heavy games out there I wanted to play, and I was content with what my console could play. Then, more recently I priced out a new gaming computer vs. buying a 360. And still, when you have to fund your own upkeep the console starts to look good.

I still wish I had my own gaming rig, and a dimly lit room to place said rig in. I miss console chat during battlefield 1942 and Unreal Tournament. I'm not all that satisfied with voice-chat. But I'm dealing, and I'm finding that I'm generally happy with my current choice.

[syntheticgerbil]

...Captain Keen...

Hey that's what my dad would call him when grumbling for me to get off his computer.

[gdf]

In my opinion, this is one of the best arguments in favor of console gaming: It is more social. Even online networking can't beat having both direct and virtual interactions with your opponents (or allies). I guess there's not really a market for local gaming on PCs, but it's one area where they are really lagging behind consoles. Ports of games like Halo could at least leave it in as an option for those who have the peripherals to support it (or maybe they do, I haven't checked).

This is not necessarily an advantage for all. Yeah, I enjoyed buggering about with my online buddies in Halo, Call of Duty and Gears, but I always have and will be a single-player man. Unless it's in a real-life social setting - effectively local multiplayer, the opportunity for which doesn't arise as often as I'd like - I want to play games solo. I don't want my gaming to be an open event, I just want my chair and a fuck-off gaming rig. It's my thing, my special hobby, my quiet time, my space to do as I please. Nobody can disturb me on PC, but as soon as I log on to Xbox Live (and to a lesser extent PSN), I get flooded with invites and people bugging me about multiplayer for whatever shooter I just bought on PC instead. Even multiplayer on PC is a largely solitary experience. You're on your own even in a team. You find your role and you fucking well do it, otherwise you won't last. Plus, in general, the communities are more mature. Lack of voice chat in general means nobody can call my mum gay, and text insults are much easier to ignore than a little kid screaming it repeatedly in your ear. A dark room lit only by the monitor glow and blue LEDs in the case is the perfect setting for gaming. Serious business indeed.

tl;dr, basically, in my opinion single-player > multiplayer.

[jneeriem]

Hey that's what my dad would call him when grumbling for me to get off his computer.

Because it was Commander Keen. Damn. I knew I should have fact-checked my memories!

[LOPcagney]

This is not necessarily an advantage for all.

I agree completely. I'm a solo gamer myself. I'm just saying, it's best to keep all options open.

[syntheticgerbil]

Because it was Commander Keen. Damn. I knew I should have fact-checked my memories!

No, it's cool, I knew what you were saying, you just brought up a funny memory for me.

[brkl]

Before I lived in a household with a console, I always thought the local multiplayer was a really seductive feature of console gaming. I lived about a month at my parents' though when my little brother got 360 and that doesn't seem to be reflected in the actual games. He bought way more than I thought was necessary, and local multiplayer is clearly not something companies feel is important. Games like UT3 would only support two players for no reason, other shooters wouldn't have any bots (ever player a Counterstrike-like game with 3 players?). A few of the games would say they support multiplayer in different colours on the back of the box, but I guess none of those colours was the one for local splitscreen multiplayer? Anyway, I realized that the best bet for hotseat play was a flatscreen TV attached to a PC with some brilliant little indie game like Gibbage or a MAME emulator and some gamepads.

[toblix]

as soon as I log on to Xbox Live (and to a lesser extent PSN), I get flooded with invites and people

You must have another version of Xbox Live than I have. And PSN.

[gdf]

I think all my friends might be massive rotten cunts.

[Garple]

Yeah, and keep in mind that people who buy consoles almost invariably buy computers as well, so tack on the price of a low-grade PC automatically to the cost of a console.

Yeah, but they don't buy both at the same time, and for a lot of people that makes a huge difference. I know that the gaming hobby moves very quickly in terms of hardware and software. A console is a much easier way for me to keep up with what's going on. I can buy it relatively cheaply after the 1st price drop (which is fine because the games library usually isn't very sizable or interesting until then) without too much trouble and, therefore, not be hopelessly behind on all the games that are coming out. And, sure, a PC can do a million other things and yes, I'm inevitably going to own a computer, but for anything I can think of beside gaming, a PC that I bought years ago is fine...so it's not like... "I'm buying a new pc every couple years, so I might as well buy a gaming rig."

That said, my plan is to put together a good gaming PC the next time I get a new computer. Largely for what Chris said about it being an open platform and the fact that Steam has made getting awesome games cheap and easy. That just won't be for a couple years.

It crushes me that my budget keeps me from playing things like "the Path" and "Little Big Planet", but I can't own all gaming platforms.

That's the really painful thing about gaming: accepting that there are a decent number of games you'll really want to play, but won't be able to.

[blackboxme]

Yeah, but they don't buy both at the same time, and for a lot of people that makes a huge difference. I know that the gaming hobby moves very quickly in terms of hardware and software. A console is a much easier way for me to keep up with what's going on. I can buy it relatively cheaply after the 1st price drop (which is fine because the games library usually isn't very sizable or interesting until then) without too much trouble and, therefore, not be hopelessly behind on all the games that are coming out. And, sure, a PC can do a million other things and yes, I'm inevitably going to own a computer, but for anything I can think of beside gaming, a PC that I bought years ago is fine...so it's not like... "I'm buying a new pc every couple years, so I might as well buy a gaming rig."

That said, my plan is to put together a good gaming PC the next time I get a new computer. Largely for what Chris said about it being an open platform and the fact that Steam has made getting awesome games cheap and easy. That just won't be for a couple years.

It crushes me that my budget keeps me from playing things like "the Path" and "Little Big Planet", but I can't own all gaming platforms.

That's the really painful thing about gaming: accepting that there are a decent number of games you'll really want to play, but won't be able to.

What are your computer's specs? You might be able to do well, considering that a lot of PC games are also on consoles and that tech is years old now as well.

Why did I turn to PC gaming? I didn't have a tv for the past year...

[Garple]

What are your computer's specs? You might be able to do well, considering that a lot of PC games are also on consoles and that tech is years old now as well.

Why did I turn to PC gaming? I didn't have a tv for the past year...

Well...for the most part...I use a laptop now, which has integrated graphics (I know, I know...but I got it dirt cheap from a friend and it was less than a year old...plus it's damn good for everything but games).

Therefore, my actual PC is like 6 years old. It's got a pentium 4 and Intel Extreme graphics II...I can't remember everything else off the top of my head...but I imagine I'd probably have to replace the power source and motherboard and everything in order to accommodate a new vidcard and CPU.

I don't know much about computers, so I'd be hesitant to try anything too intensive in terms of overhauling an old PC.

[blackboxme]

Yeah, 6 years old might be too old to overhaul.

I will say that the Radeon HD4670 runs on my 400w dell power supply, and without the second power attachment that a lot of new cards need.

[Garple]

I just bought and started playing Diablo II and holy crap that is a video game. So I'm really interested in PC gaming again. But I only have a laptop with an integrated graphics card. I've found I can run "The Path" if I turn everything to low settings...does anyone have experience with running games on extremely ill-equipped specs? Does it ever work well enough to play a whole game that way? What about those programs that emulate a better graphics card and virtualize other tech by using more of the CPU (like 3D Analyze)? Also, any suggestions and or links to great games that probably would work well on an HP dv6000 base model (I do have steam installed so recommendations for games from there especially good deals would be cool)?

I've been playing a lot of indie platformers lately, many of which have been great, but those just feel like console games that happen to be on the PC.