The King of Gaming wrote:
> Wow, interesting that this debate has continued on. You would think
> the PC died as a gaming platform yesterday, as opposed to a decade ago
> when it actually kicked the bucket.
Seriously? Would you care to back that statement up because I can give
you a very long list of excellent PC titles that have come out over the
past 10 years, plenty of them being PC only
> As "N" said, obviously there is some hyperbole when saying PC gaming
> is completely dead. You can still play some great games (as long as
> the publisher feels like porting them)
Also joint development. Not the same as porting.
> Really, the only PC game of any significance in the last five years is
> WoW, which isn't really a game but an addictive, social chat room/
> grindfest that can be run on a five year old Celeron laptop.
>
> Finally, I'll simply say this. Two of the most (if not the most) over-
> saturated, often published, overexposed franchises in history, Madden
> and Guitar Hero/Rock Band, cannot be played on PC. EA pulled the plug
> on PC sports games last year, and after GH III
In two and a half decades of multi-platform gaming I've never bought a
single sports game. If I want to play a sport, I'll go outside and do it.
You seemto put a lot of emphasis on franchises and big names games. A
lot of the "big name" games are not big name becaue they are overly
good, they just have a good marketing team behind them. Halo for
example, fun game. Nothing special, Halo 1 was miles behind PC FPSs when
it was released. The only major thing it did was the inclusion of
vehicles. Metal gear solid, again, rubbish stealth game compared to
something like Thief, in face that's very good example of why I disagree
with your definition of important. Metal Gear Solid was probably better
known than Thief, and certainly sold better. However it was Thief that
has been the influence for slealth in modern games.
|
