# Where are the NEW games?



## Man in the Funny Hat (Apr 4, 2010)

Where the hell are even the remakes of classic games?  Maybe it's just me but my memories of the 80's and 90's were of buying a new game nearly every month - and they were all different kinds of games.  Arcade side-scrollers, strategy games, tactical wargames, flight simulation games, adventure games...  Right now I'm so bored of having played the same freaking games for the last 5 years that I'm playing Roller Coaster Tycoon and Torchlight.  I'm playing a little bit of CivII while waiting without a lot of hope for CivV (as in I haven't cared for Civ III or IV.)  I've played all the WoW I care to and cancelled that account last year.  I MIGHT still be playing City of Heroes but they f'd up thier own in-game community with the "Architect" update and I cancelled that account months ago.

I'd pay serious money for a decent - reasonably FAITHFUL - remake of Xcom.  Hell, I'm playing the ORIGINAL on Steam.  I'd kill to be able to play Descent/Descent2 again (tried but can't get it to work with a USB joystick from THIS century).  I'd even play Panzer General.  Not WELL but I enjoyed it anyway.

Sigh.  It just seems like I'm waiting months - even years for new games that want to be the next industry-dominating blockbuster that end up being nothing NEW or uninteresting enough to get removed from my hard drive within a week after hardly being played.

Sigh x 2.  Right now I feel like it'll be more fun and interesting to go do YARD WORK outside than to drudge through trying to scrape up a game worth playing.  It probably is just me.


----------



## SKyOdin (Apr 5, 2010)

From your examples, it sounds like you are a PC-gamer. The problem you may be facing is that PC gaming isn't very healthy right now. Most major developers and publishers are focusing their primary efforts on consoles these days, with PC gaming a distant after-thought. Unfortunately for PC gamers, this situation isn't likely to change in the near future.

As primarily a console gamer, I have been swimming in games for the last several years. Of course, my tastes are probably very different from yours, so the games I like might not appeal to you.


----------



## Felon (Apr 5, 2010)

I'm glad I'm not the only person who found the OP to be leaving out some vital details in terms of what platform or genre we're talking about. 

Strategy games have a real problem. Every developer today wants to appeal to some hypothetical "mainstream" gamer. They figure they should try to get all of the guys playing Modern Warfare or Halo. So they try to "streamline" their games by stripping away intricacy. After years of hype Spore wound up going from offering the most meticulous level of detail of any game in the universe to being purely kiddie fare. And instead of a real Civ game, we got Civilization Revolutions.  

Fans of D&D edition wars should be able to uncover some analogues there. 

X-Com was probably the most fun I've ever had on a PC. But I shudder to think what would be made of it today. Even in 1997, they were trying to make a push into real-time. 

But strategy games aside, it's a veritable cornucopia of games. This is the year we finally managed to snap the 4Q stranglehold, with everyone trying to release all their AAA titles within the same six weeks. Now, it's almost once a month.


----------



## Redrobes (Apr 5, 2010)

Where are the NEW games?

There not there cos noone is making them anymore. And thats because after spending a truckload of wedge in programmers and artist time, production, pressing and distribution, its hacked in 24h and torrented.

If its on a console and somewhat protected from mass torrenting then you have to pay big corp extortion so that its not worth doing small time games if they would be released with only a modest price reduction compared to big titles. Noone would buy them.

Now lest just be clear here: We've collectively chosen this.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 5, 2010)

Well....steam is pretty good, not sure if there are cracks/ways around Valve's stuff (I'm sure there is, but not sure how good it is). For any system there are ways to get free stuff. Heck, my brother had a HD on his old xbox and installed games right onto it. Sega Saturn you could download the games IIRC. 

I find that so many of today's games are let downs, especially as I fondly recall and revisit my old 90's PC games, BG2, Xcom, Civ 2, Fallout 1 & 2, that I can't help but feel apathetic towards VG's. I play a lot of Left 4 Dead 2 right now as I love killing zombies and enjoy sneaking in the 20 minutes it takes to play a map or 2. 

It's funny to me that new RPG's are really just other genres with RPG elements, like say Mass Effect. It is a shooter with RPG elements and a really good story. Don't get me wrong I really enjoyed the first one (but don't have the time now for the 2nd) as well as KOTOR, but they've strayed pretty far from traditional RPGs.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 5, 2010)

Between all my PC & console games I could not buy anything new for 5 years and still have plenty of games to keep me going.  I haven't even cracked the plastic on a few of them!

With the exception of a couple genres there is plenty to be found on the PC & consoles that is damn entertaining.  The RPG genre, for example, is teeming with new games and older games that are getting some new polish.


----------



## SKyOdin (Apr 5, 2010)

Redrobes said:


> If its on a console and somewhat protected from mass torrenting then you have to pay big corp extortion so that its not worth doing small time games if they would be released with only a modest price reduction compared to big titles. Noone would buy them.




Well, to be fair, with WiiWare, PlayStation Network, and XBox Live Arcade, there is room for a lot of smaller games in the digital distribution market. I think a lot of smaller titles have moved to the iPhone market as well.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Apr 5, 2010)

Whats wrong with...

Bioshock
Fallout 3
Geometry Wars
Assassins Creed (2 is much better than 1)
Overlord
Rock Band/Guitar Hero
Sam & Max
PuzzleQuest

There are plenty of new(er) games out that are fun.  I am not quite sure exactly what you are looking for.

DS


----------



## Felon (Apr 6, 2010)

People are tired of being on a never-ending upgrade treadmill. My four-year-old PC can't even be upgraded, since it lacks PCI Express and a SATA drive controller. So, if I want a decent gaming rig, I gotta decide to sink a minimum $1200 on that investment, and know in doing so that in a couple of years it will be an outmoded piece of junk. Or I can pay about $3000 for a sweet Alienware/Maingear/Falcon NW PC that will stave off miserable obsolesence by another year. Mind you, everything else I do with a computer doesn't take more than a $500 PC can offer.

So, console it is.


----------



## Welverin (Apr 7, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> I haven't even cracked the plastic on a few of them!




Ryan?


----------



## renau1g (Apr 8, 2010)

yes?

Oh....you mean a different Ryan


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 8, 2010)

Welverin said:


> Ryan?



Nope.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 8, 2010)

Firstly, there are tons of games coming out for PC, and a gazillion that have been sold in recent years. The myth that 'PC gaming is dying!1!' is nothing new; been around for many years indeed. Still a load of, as before.

Secondly, a gaming PC (that blows away any console, and comes with *unique* capabilities galore) costs _nowhere near_ $1200. Yeesh.

Lastly, mods make a number of otherwise iffy games very much playable. _For me_, natch. YMMV, etc. But it's worth looking at. Not only are there literally thousands of mods for some games, there are also redux versions being worked on for quite a few old, and not so old, games. Whether it's all about using a more modern engine, or another kind of overhaul. Point is, between mods and remakes, there is a _vast_ 'world' of games out there, _only_ for users of the humble PC. Yes, some mods do exist for other hardware, but PCs get the most and the best of it by far.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 8, 2010)

Neverwinter Nights I hear had some absolutely unbelievable mods to it (now I disliked the game myself, it isn't D&D to me to have 1 PC and a hireling, but that's my opinion).


----------



## Welverin (Apr 8, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> Nope.




Huh, sounds just like him.


----------



## babomb (Apr 9, 2010)

The gaming industry has changed since the 80s and 90s, but you can still find good new games. It seems like you're mostly talking about PC games, so I'll only list those.

*Adventure Games*

 _Sam and Max_
 _Tales of Monkey Island_
 A whole bunch of rereleases on Steam, such as _King's Quest_ and _Space Quest_ collections, and _Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis_.
 _Another World_ AKA _Out of this World_ remake
 _Ben There, Dan That_ and sequel _Time Gentlemen, Please!_
*Action/Adventure*

 _Batman: Arkham Asylum_
 _Left 4 Dead 1  & 2_
*Strategy*

 _Solium Infernum_
 _Fall From Heaven II_ mod for _Civ IV_ (even if you didn't care much for Civ IV, this is almost a completely different game)
*RPG*

 _Fallout 3_
 _Mass Effect_
 _Dragon Age: Origins_
 _The Witcher_
 _King's Bounty: The Legend_ (tactical RPG)
*Other*

 _Spelunky_ - This is my favorite game of 2009, sort of a rogue-like platformer.
 _AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! A Reckless Disregard for Gravity_ - Basejumping. Novel gameplay, quirky humor, and easily playable in short chunks.
 _World of Goo_

On top of that, between Steam and GoodOldGames.com, you can probably find enough old games that you missed the first time around to keep you occupied for years. I bought so many games in the Steam Holiday Sale that I haven't even played half of them yet.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 10, 2010)

games of 2010 « reasons why it’s worth to be a pcgamer

Just to bring some names and numbers to the party.


----------



## Felon (Apr 10, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> Secondly, a gaming PC (that blows away any console, and comes with *unique* capabilities galore) costs _nowhere near_ $1200. Yeesh.



We've been around this bend before. I throw out a pretty reasoanble figure for a gaming rig, and then you or whoever sneers and claims that that an awesome rig can be had for less than $1000, but never backs it up. This is one topic where I'm happy to proven wrong. Go ahead. Present a PC that's a worthy gaming machine for "nowhere near $1200". Show, don't tell.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 11, 2010)

I'm with you Felon, I keep hearing that but every time I look on NCIX for a quad processor, motherboard and decent video card I'm already over $600, plus monitor, RAM, speakers (or headphones), case, cooling system, sound card, NIC card, DVD drive, etc, etc...


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Apr 11, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> games of 2010 « reasons why it’s worth to be a pcgamer
> 
> Just to bring some names and numbers to the party.



Clearly I shop at the wrong retailers then because I can guarantee that 90% or more of those titles will never see shelf space, or will only be one or two copies buried behind 20 different 'The Sims' (1, 2, AND 3!) expansion packs or other obscure and unsold titles that have been there for a year.

Actually, thinking about THAT I've concluded that my problem is I'm in those useless brick&mortar stores at ALL anymore.  I was HIGHLY dependent upon Computer Gaming World as my primary source of reliable game news and reviews.  When it folded I never found a replacement.  I now no longer have anyplace to turn to and say, "I feel like playing a new game but I don't want to have to RESEARCH for a week to find something - just tell me what YOU think is good that all the cool kids will be playing."


----------



## renau1g (Apr 11, 2010)

What country are you in? I'm guessing not the US or Canada as there are a few stores in each of these countries that still have PC games (I live in a border city). 

Have you looked at the direct to drive stuff? Sure it might take 5 minutes of research to see if a game's fun, but after checking ign.com and seeing their rating + the aggregate ratings for a bunch of other sites (easily seen via IGN's rating system) you can tell if its for you. Actually, it's probably less time than getting up, driving your car (taking the bus) to the mall/retail location, talking to the guy, buying the game, driving home and opening the packaging.


----------



## Kaodi (Apr 12, 2010)

renau1g said:


> ...plus monitor...speakers (or headphones)...




Hold on a second here: This, at least, makes for an unfair comparison... No one ever complains that whenever they buy a console they need a TV to go with it, but the fact is that the TV is part of the cost. And while many people can expect to have a TV before they have a console, in this day and age many people can expect to already have some kind of monitor that they can attach to their computer.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 12, 2010)

Kaodi said:


> Hold on a second here: This, at least, makes for an unfair comparison... No one ever complains that whenever they buy a console they need a TV to go with it, but the fact is that the TV is part of the cost. And while many people can expect to have a TV before they have a console, in this day and age many people can expect to already have some kind of monitor that they can attach to their computer.



People are more likely to have a TV than a computer monitor.


----------



## Kaodi (Apr 12, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> People are more likely to have a TV than a computer monitor.




So? How much more likely? More likely to have a TV that is satisfying for game use, or just any old one?

Regardless, the argument still stands: On the whole, a portion of the value of the television must be counted as an expense of a console.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 12, 2010)

Kaodi said:


> So? How much more likely?



Considerably more likely.



Kaodi said:


> More likely to have a TV that is satisfying for game use, or just any old one?



The same can be said about a monitor or anything else related to a PC.  There are always upgrades.



Kaodi said:


> Regardless, the argument still stands: On the whole, a portion of the value of the television must be counted as an expense of a console.



I disagree.  A TV has multiple uses.  A computer monitor is used for one thing.


----------



## Kaodi (Apr 13, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> I disagree.  A TV has multiple uses.  A computer monitor is used for one thing.




What uses does a TV have other than watching television, watching movies and playing video games?

A computer monitor is likewise used for multiple activities. Using the internet, working and playing video games.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 13, 2010)

Kaodi said:


> What uses does a TV have other than watching television, watching movies and playing video games?



Those are three huge activities that can all be shared by multiple users at the same time.  Most households have a TV.  The same cannot be said for a computer monitor.



Kaodi said:


> A computer monitor is likewise used for multiple activities. Using the internet, working and playing video games.



I'll strike "working" off that list since we're talking about entertainment devices here.  And since video games also falls into the TV's arena that one is moot.  Leaving the internet.  And then there's laptops where the monitor is automatically tied to the price. 

The point is that a console is always a cheaper entry price to gaming compared to a PC.   You can try and tie in the price of a TV to console gaming but it still doesn't compare.  The TV has considerably more uses that a computer monitor does with the main advantage being multiple simultaneous users.  That and more people are going simply own a TV compared to a computer monitor.  Why do you think the Wii sales were so high?


----------



## renau1g (Apr 13, 2010)

Kaodi said:


> Hold on a second here: This, at least, makes for an unfair comparison... No one ever complains that whenever they buy a console they need a TV to go with it, but the fact is that the TV is part of the cost. And while many people can expect to have a TV before they have a console, in this day and age many people can expect to already have some kind of monitor that they can attach to their computer.




fair enough, but a monitor is only $300 for a decent one.


----------



## Felon (Apr 13, 2010)

renau1g said:


> I'm with you Felon, I keep hearing that but every time I look on NCIX for a quad processor, motherboard and decent video card I'm already over $600, plus monitor, RAM, speakers (or headphones), case, cooling system, sound card, NIC card, DVD drive, etc, etc...




I returned to this thread hoping that Axus or someone else would have posted their wondrous "nowhere-near-$1200-YEEESH!" gaming machine that would lift the scales from my eyes. No such luck yet. 

I'll make things easier by tossing out an example of a well-received-and-award-winning gaming PC that is in that price range, the Velocity Micro Z30: 

Velocity Micro Edge Z30 (Intel Core i7) Desktop reviews - CNET Reviews

Kind of an old system, actually. Should be easy to top. 

I didn't really want to offer an example, mind you, because I have enough internet experience to know what happens. The laws of human gravity hold that it is much easier, and thus more appealing, to deconstruct than construct. Ask for someone to present evidence, and you get silence. Present your own evidence, and you get people falling over themselves in a frenzy to explain all of the reasons the evidence should be thrown out. The resultant nitpicking and bickering takes over the discussion, and the whole thing goes into a tedious death spiral. 



Kaodi said:


> Hold on a second here: This, at least, makes for an unfair comparison... No one ever complains that whenever they buy a console they need a TV to go with it, but the fact is that the TV is part of the cost. And while many people can expect to have a TV before they have a console, in this day and age many people can expect to already have some kind of monitor that they can attach to their computer.




My suspicion is that most people who insist a good PC can be had on a sub-$1000 budget are scratch-building. Building a computer piecemeal often produces a machine with specs that seem similar to more expensive systems, because you aren't paying someone to put the pieces together and you aren't buying a warranty. Essentially, you are defraying up-front costs to until something goes wrong. Sort of like how buying a house supposedly conveys a nice itemizable tax deduction, but in reality you can easily wind losing money on upkeep.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 13, 2010)

Well you are getting a warranty on the parts you buy, usually a fairly decent one as well. I've built 3 PC's so far (not super-optimized gaming rigs, but just fairly decent ones that can play most games well) and *knock on wood* the only things that have gone on me are my NIC (three times).


----------



## Felon (Apr 14, 2010)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> I'd pay serious money for a decent - reasonably FAITHFUL - remake of Xcom.






Felon said:


> Strategy games have a real problem. Every developer today wants to appeal to some hypothetical "mainstream" gamer. They figure they should try to get all of the guys playing Modern Warfare or Halo. So they try to "streamline" their games by stripping away intricacy. After years of hype Spore wound up going from offering the most meticulous level of detail of any game in the universe to being purely kiddie fare. And instead of a real Civ game, we got Civilization Revolutions.
> 
> X-Com was probably the most fun I've ever had on a PC. But I shudder to think what would be made of it today.




Well, at least I can stop shuddering. The awful reality has come to pass:



			
				Gamespot News said:
			
		

> Rumors that 2K was working on a fresh take on the classic X-Com games have been bubbling since the publisher acquired the license from Atari in 2005. That speculation came back with a vengeance last year after a resume was unearthed from a 3D artist who formerly was with 2K Australia, with the document listing X-Com as one of the titles he had worked on.
> 
> All the gossip has now proved to be true, with 2K today confirming that it is indeed working on a new game in the alien-focused franchise, simply titled "XCOM." The publisher is billing the new Xbox 360 and PC game as a "re-imagining" of the franchise. Unlike the turn-based strategy and resource management core of the original X-Com: UFO Defense, the new title will be a first-person shooter. Players will take the role of an FBI agent whose job is to identify and eliminate an unknown extraterrestrial threat.




Gimme a second to clear my throat here...Ahem...Mi mi mi.....

*NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo!*


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Apr 14, 2010)

Felon said:


> Well, at least I can stop shuddering. The awful reality has come to pass:



Q.E.D.

They just don't get it.  They have no clue whatsoever what it was about that game that made it so great.  Rather than understanding that there are elements about that 14-year-old game that make it STILL fun to play and worthy of faithful, respectful improvement they (apparantly) just want to be able to slap the name with what associated good reputation it's managed to retain (after some already abysmal sequels) onto any old thing they care to shovel out.  We could, and _should_, have been playing XCom:V or :VI by now - enjoyable sequels in an ongoing franchise of turn-based strategy.  We should be seeing it provide fully destructable 3D environments with player-controlled camera positioning, a continuing story line, online gameplay, community mods, and all the rest.

Instead, we get this.  Sigh.  I'm gonna go play some more of that game of Pirates! I started last weekend now.  At least that game is only 6 years old.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 15, 2010)

*Blech* FPS? WTF! 

Sigh...Civ still use turn-based gaming and it does ok right? They're on Civ V now?


----------



## guedo79 (Apr 18, 2010)

Welverin said:


> Huh, sounds just like him.




Oy, you two cut that out.




I've unwrapped some today....


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 19, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> games of 2010 « reasons why it’s worth to be a pcgamer
> 
> Just to bring some names and numbers to the party.



Some of the game screenshots look odd and dated. 

But: Jagged Alliance 3?! Awesome! 

C&C 4 and Starcraft 2 are also interesting to me.
Startrek: Supremacy might be interesting, as might be Lego Universe.
I am already playing Startrek Online.

Interesting titles: 
- Infinity 
- Naumachia
- A Stargate game?
- Wing Commander Saga
- Supreme Commander
- Max Payne


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Apr 19, 2010)

Going to have to break out my XCOM copy and play it again tonight in compatibility mode.
Wonder how long it will take me to get to Mars and back this time.


----------



## Welverin (Apr 20, 2010)

guedo79 said:


> Oy, you two cut that out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Because you were shamed into it?

Look on the bright side, Steam games don't come wrapped in plastic.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 21, 2010)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Clearly I shop at the wrong retailers then because I can guarantee that 90% or more of those titles will never see shelf space, or will only be one or two copies buried behind 20 different 'The Sims' (1, 2, AND 3!) expansion packs or other obscure and unsold titles that have been there for a year.
> 
> Actually, thinking about THAT I've concluded that my problem is I'm in those useless brick&mortar stores at ALL anymore.  I was HIGHLY dependent upon Computer Gaming World as my primary source of reliable game news and reviews.  When it folded I never found a replacement.  I now no longer have anyplace to turn to and say, "I feel like playing a new game but I don't want to have to RESEARCH for a week to find something - just tell me what YOU think is good that all the cool kids will be playing."



Yeah, stop going to brick and mortar stores for software, especially if you want something in the "long tail" of gaming, rather than Sims 5.

And kotaku.com is a good gaming blog that covers a wide variety of gaming preferences and it consolidates reviews from multiple sources.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 21, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> People are more likely to have a TV than a computer monitor.



If you're under 40, it's only by a very narrow (and decreasing) margin.


----------



## Elephant (Apr 22, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> People are more likely to have a TV than a computer monitor.




Says the guy arguing in an _internet forum_.  You already have a monitor.  Now, maybe you're bored with your current one, so you buy a new one when you buy your new gaming rig, but that's no different than buying a new HDTV to go with that XBox 360 now that you're bored with the PS3.

Seriously.  It's 2010.  Even my _grandmother_ has multiple computers now.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 22, 2010)

Elephant said:


> Says the guy arguing in an _internet forum_.  You already have a monitor.



Pointlessly pointing out that we are on the internet doesn't mean that there are more monitors out there than TVs.  Nor does it reduce the entry price of gaming for PCs versus consoles which is the whole point of the conversation.


----------



## Felon (Apr 25, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> Pointlessly pointing out that we are on the internet doesn't mean that there are more monitors out there than TVs.  Nor does it reduce the entry price of gaming for PCs versus consoles which is the whole point of the conversation.



What makes it especially pointless is that I established that even with the monitor taken out of the consideration, the price point on a good gaming PC is still over $1000. I linked to an example of one. All blithely ignored just to keep harping on a pointless point.


----------



## Kaodi (Apr 25, 2010)

Felon said:


> What makes it especially pointless is that I established that even with the monitor taken out of the consideration, the price point on a good gaming PC is still over $1000. I linked to an example of one. All blithely ignored just to keep harping on a pointless point.




Why is it that trying to disarm particular assumptions in an argument that do not disarm the entire argument seen as pointless? 

Another question: Is it not something of an assumption that a console actually fits the same definition of "good gaming rig" that is being applied to PCs? Games on console are necessarily scaled down to the consoles capabilities, so everything that would make it troublesome for a PC has been taken out. Why not strictly compare the price of a console to a PC that can outperform a console on equal settings?


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 26, 2010)

Felon said:


> People are tired of being on a never-ending upgrade treadmill. My four-year-old PC can't even be upgraded, since it lacks PCI Express and a SATA drive controller. So, if I want a decent gaming rig, I gotta decide to sink a minimum $1200 on that investment, and know in doing so that in a couple of years it will be an outmoded piece of junk. Or I can pay about $3000 for a sweet Alienware/Maingear/Falcon NW PC that will stave off miserable obsolesence by another year. Mind you, everything else I do with a computer doesn't take more than a $500 PC can offer.
> 
> So, console it is.




I don't think this paradigm is the same as it was before.  PCs, and the games that work on them, don't rely on requirements in the same way that they did back in like....1992.

It's definitely possible to play games that a PC might seem unequipped for, as long as you have enough RAM, among other things.  I played DragonAge on a PC that didn't meet the requirements for CPU clock speed, and it worked fine until the very last battle, and then all I had to do was drop the graphics a bit.

My new PC definitely is by no means a super machine...taxes in, I spent about $1100, and that's in Canada, where equipment tends to be overpriced.  But it still rates a 7.5 out of 7.9 on the Windows 7 benchmarks, seems to run anything I throw at it, and is not cutting edge at all.  It's got a $150 video card, instead of the top of the line $600 ones they put in gaming rigs.  Really, the only reason I upgraded from my last one is that the heatsink died, and because it was so old, I'd have had to get the replacement used, shipped from a guy in Australia who seemed to be selling it on Ebay.  I figured at that point, it wasn't worth the trouble.

I think they calculate minimum and recommended specs very differently than they used to.  Back in the days of Wing Commander etc. if you didn't meet the minimum requirements, you literally couldn't play the game...at all.  I haven't really run into that lately.

I think about the only thing I could have done extra to test this thesis would have been to purchase Crysis and try it on my old PC..but with no heat sink, that's not really possible.

Banshee


----------



## Felon (Apr 28, 2010)

Kaodi said:


> Why is it that trying to disarm particular assumptions in an argument that do not disarm the entire argument seen as pointless?



It was suggested that the inclusion of a monitor was skewing the price of a gaming PC. It wasn't. There was nothing to "disarm". On top of that, nobody was doing a particularly good job of disarming each other.



Kaodi said:


> Another question: Is it not something of an assumption that a console actually fits the same definition of "good gaming rig" that is being applied to PCs? Games on console are necessarily scaled down to the consoles capabilities, so everything that would make it troublesome for a PC has been taken out. Why not strictly compare the price of a console to a PC that can outperform a console on equal settings?



OK, I'll bite. How exactly do you do that? Is somebody out there providing that metric?

I think it's a little more realistic to accept that if someone's trying to buy a decent gaming rig, then they want something decent in its own category.


----------



## Kaodi (Apr 29, 2010)

Felon said:


> OK, I'll bite. How exactly do you do that? Is somebody out there providing that metric?
> 
> I think it's a little more realistic to accept that if someone's trying to buy a decent gaming rig, then they want something decent in its own category.




I will admit that I am not entirely clear at the moment. Were I rolling in dough, I would be tempted to try it out myself; but alas, I am not.

I can accept the distinction of "something decent in its own category," but this brings us back to the question of what it means to compare a PC to a console. I mean, I can say, "A Playstation 3 is a better gaming machine than a Nintendo DS," but if I am currently in a car, or on a train, or an airplane, the context makes this in a way a factually incorrect statement, because how good a gaming machine is must necessarily be tied to how well it fits your current needs. Do PCs and consoles live in the same context?


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 29, 2010)

Kaodi said:


> I will admit that I am not entirely clear at the moment. Were I rolling in dough, I would be tempted to try it out myself; but alas, I am not.
> 
> I can accept the distinction of "something decent in its own category," but this brings us back to the question of what it means to compare a PC to a console. I mean, I can say, "A Playstation 3 is a better gaming machine than a Nintendo DS," but if I am currently in a car, or on a train, or an airplane, the context makes this in a way a factually incorrect statement, because how good a gaming machine is must necessarily be tied to how well it fits your current needs. Do PCs and consoles live in the same context?



Um.

What does that have to do with anything we're talking about?


----------



## Kaodi (Apr 29, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> Um.
> 
> What does that have to do with anything we're talking about?




What does most of this thread have to do with what the OP is about?

But is it not implicit in Felon having stated before that due to the prohibitive costs of a good gaming PC that he was stickig to consoles? Does that not warrant a question that, no matter how backwards it may have sounded, is more or less just asking whether this is *purely* a question of cost: like, " I could not afford a Formula 1 Race Car, so I guess I will just travel by Camarro, " ; OR is it saying that a Camarro is *better* overall than a Formula 1 Race Car?


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 29, 2010)

Kaodi said:


> What does most of this thread have to do with what the OP is about?
> 
> But is it not implicit in Felon having stated before that due to the prohibitive costs of a good gaming PC that he was stickig to consoles? Does that not warrant a question that, no matter how backwards it may have sounded, is more or less just asking whether this is *purely* a question of cost: like, " I could not afford a Formula 1 Race Car, so I guess I will just travel by Camarro, " ; OR is it saying that a Camarro is *better* overall than a Formula 1 Race Car?



I wasn't referring to the OP.

Sounds like you are getting way down the line of thought to the point where it needs it's own thread.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Felon (Apr 29, 2010)

Kaodi said:


> But is it not implicit in Felon having stated before that due to the prohibitive costs of a good gaming PC that he was stickig to consoles? Does that not warrant a question that, no matter how backwards it may have sounded, is more or less just asking whether this is *purely* a question of cost: like, " I could not afford a Formula 1 Race Car, so I guess I will just travel by Camarro, " ; OR is it saying that a Camarro is *better* overall than a Formula 1 Race Car?



Well, you can get a PS3 for $400 now, and a 360 for $350. That sum of money will get you a media-center style PC, not something any manufacture will tout as being a game rig (well, maybe the more shameless ones...). It costs $100-200 just for a decent graphics card, and that's classified as a "budget" class model card. So, using either of your distinctions, the deck is stacked against the PC in terms of performance. 

There is no universally-acknowledged point of demarcation that identifies where a PC has surpassed a console. Comparing hardware alone doesn't do it, because a game taxes a console in a different way than a PC with equivalent hardware. After all, the PC is performing lots of other background processes. Ultimately, the distinction is made based on individual games. Thus, you can't gauge framerates-per-second across-the-board as you would gauge KPH or gas mileage in comparing a Formula 1 with a Camaro. 

What reviewers tend to do when comparing one PC to another is compare a range of benchmarks based on a handful of games. To use the car analogy, they rate the performance on select stretches of popular roads. Suffice to say, not many reviewers are attempting meaningful comparisons based on benchmarks for Plants vs. Zombies or Peggle, and likewise it would be tough to find someone running benchmarks for Crysis on a $350 PC. The range where someone is testing a game like Dragon Age is going to be on a machine that closes in on $1000. 

The chief exception would be MMO's (notably WoW of course), which are sufficiently optimized for low-end computers that some reviewers do try to benchmark how well it will work on a cheap-o PC or even a netbook. But of course, those comparisons aren't germaine to consoles (where MMO's are for all intents and purposes unavailable).

So, to try to bottom-line: you can't identify a price point where a given PC macthes a console's performance, but for a modern, cross-platform game with reasonable demands, you can bet it's more than $350.  

Feel free to google and let me know if you find anything enlightening.


----------



## obiwansolo18 (May 5, 2010)

It's been my experience over the past few years that if you like RPG's. Stay away from pc and consoles in general and buy a DS. They throw out decent to great RPG's on the DS every week it seems I can't even keep up with how many that system has. Don't get me wrong I love my ps3, 360, and wii. But they just don't have the mass amount of RPG's that a DS has.


----------



## Welverin (May 5, 2010)

Felon said:


> Well, you can get a PS3 for $400 now, and a 360 for $350.




Less now, both are $300. The 360 has gimped version for $200 and the PS3 has a version with a  bigger HD for $50 more.


----------



## John Crichton (May 5, 2010)

obiwansolo18 said:


> It's been my experience over the past few years that if you like RPG's. Stay away from pc and consoles in general and buy a DS. They throw out decent to great RPG's on the DS every week it seems I can't even keep up with how many that system has. Don't get me wrong I love my ps3, 360, and wii. But they just don't have the mass amount of RPG's that a DS has.



I disagree.  Staying with the DS you'll miss games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect and that's just to start.  There are plenty of excellent RPGs on all platforms right now, not just the DS.


----------



## WizarDru (May 6, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> I disagree.  Staying with the DS you'll miss games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect and that's just to start.  There are plenty of excellent RPGs on all platforms right now, not just the DS.




True, but the DS reigns supreme when it comes to the sheer number of RPGs (particularly JRPGs) available.  The 360 has, roughly, 27 RPGs.  If you include action-RPG hybrids, that number probably rises to 40-50.  The DS, by contrast, has anywhere from 100-200, depending on your definition.

That isn't to say that games like ME and ME2 aren't fantastic (just go to the ME2 thread if you want my opinion on it )...but if you're looking for RPGs, right now the DS is king of the genre by a wide margin.  From Shiren the Wanderer to Etrian Odyssey to Rune Factory to Glory of Heracles to Final Fantasy Crystal Bearers to The World Ends with You.  A lot of the RPGs from the last generation of consoles moved on to the DS, like Suikoden, Luminous Arc and even DragonQuest.


----------



## John Crichton (May 6, 2010)

WizarDru said:


> True, but the DS reigns supreme when it comes to the sheer number of RPGs (particularly JRPGs) available.  The 360 has, roughly, 27 RPGs.  If you include action-RPG hybrids, that number probably rises to 40-50.  The DS, by contrast, has anywhere from 100-200, depending on your definition.



The PS3, well my PS3 anyway, has access to the entire PS2 & PS1 library of RPGs.  



WizarDru said:


> That isn't to say that games like ME and ME2 aren't fantastic (just go to the ME2 thread if you want my opinion on it )...but if you're looking for RPGs, right now the DS is king of the genre by a wide margin.  From Shiren the Wanderer to Etrian Odyssey to Rune Factory to Glory of Heracles to Final Fantasy Crystal Bearers to The World Ends with You.  A lot of the RPGs from the last generation of consoles moved on to the DS, like Suikoden, Luminous Arc and even DragonQuest.



It really depends on what kind of RPG you are looking for.  The DS has a ton of JRPGs but is lacking elsewhere.


----------



## WizarDru (May 7, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> The PS3, well my PS3 anyway, has access to the entire PS2 & PS1 library of RPGs.




Sure, remind me again why my PS3 is inferior.  Curse you!



John Crichton said:


> It really depends on what kind of RPG you are looking for.  The DS has a ton of JRPGs but is lacking elsewhere.




True, but unlike the PC, most consoles are totally lacking in RPGs other than JRPGs.  If you elminate Bioware and JRPGS from consoles, you don't have much left.


----------



## John Crichton (May 7, 2010)

WizarDru said:


> Sure, remind me again why my PS3 is inferior.  Curse you!



You can still play PS1 games.  



WizarDru said:


> True, but unlike the PC, most consoles are totally lacking in RPGs other than JRPGs.  If you elminate Bioware and JRPGS from consoles, you don't have much left.



But you can't eliminate those.  Also, you are leaving out a few big companies list like Lionhead, Bethesda and games like Demon's Souls.

It's a great thing that there are so many RPGs on the DS but it's far from the only game in town especially when it only covers one part of the genre.  So I simply refute the claim that it's the king of RPGs for consoles.


----------

