On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:09:18 -0500, "Tom" <noway@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Morgan" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:YR14n.17587$Q63.17358@newsfe23.ams2...
>> 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.
>
>I have to completely disagree with you on what you say Halo 1 did as a major
>thing. Halo changed the way console controllers works on FPS games, that
>revolutionized console gaming and really kick started FPS taking over PCs as
>the source for FPS gaming. Not only that, Halo 2 also spurred the online
>console FPS multiplayer gaming community. Look at it now and see how many
>people are playing FPS' on consoles online compared to PC. (Modern Warfare 1
>and 2, Gears, Halo 3). Now, I honestly can say that the way controllers
>work now and how the FPS attributes are mapped to the controller buttons and
>triggers, that it is more realistic and better than on PC, where you just
>point, click and shoot. There's way more immersion in controllers than
>keyboard and mouse for FPS games.
I spend enough time in front of PCs as it is...whenever I play
anything more than a simple flash game on a PC (ie it involves the KB)
it feels like I'm at work.
|
