The "PC Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Arcade conversions don't work too well on PC's, as a rule. Tekken would never work with a keyboard and mouse, and the same can be said of many racer games, albeit to a slightly lesser extent.
So does this force the games released on PC's to be more 'mind stimulating'? Less action, but more complex?
(Ignoring the obvious contradiction of FPS games though, which have done very well on PC's)
All the games by the like of Maxis and Microprose... (X-com series and Sim city games, are a few examples, if you weren't sure) tha are primarily PC games which never do anywhere near as well when (and if) released on consoles. Is this because the PC gamer is fundamentally different to the console gamer?
Could it be that the two have been going in different directions, right from the start? Since as far back as I can remember, consoles have been trying to reproduce Arcade quality software - a feat which they've now all but achieved. The result being that console games now attract the same sort of gamers who would frequent arcades (There's another possible viewpoint on the 'Sony Effect' there, if anyone wants to explore it further. I'm not going to here, however).
What have PC games been doing? They've been creating games for the PC owner. The nerd, who like mental challenges - because that was the only sort of person who used to both own a PC, and want to play games. That may not be the case any more, but it's common to find that the PC is the first place many strategy games first find the light of day - RTS games were first seen on the PC, for example - though that was partiallt because a console simply didn't have the processing power back then.
Anyway, I've rambled enough to make my point. Lets hear your views.
So does this force the games released on PC's to be more 'mind stimulating'? Less action, but more complex?
(Ignoring the obvious contradiction of FPS games though, which have done very well on PC's)
All the games by the like of Maxis and Microprose... (X-com series and Sim city games, are a few examples, if you weren't sure) tha are primarily PC games which never do anywhere near as well when (and if) released on consoles. Is this because the PC gamer is fundamentally different to the console gamer?
Could it be that the two have been going in different directions, right from the start? Since as far back as I can remember, consoles have been trying to reproduce Arcade quality software - a feat which they've now all but achieved. The result being that console games now attract the same sort of gamers who would frequent arcades (There's another possible viewpoint on the 'Sony Effect' there, if anyone wants to explore it further. I'm not going to here, however).
What have PC games been doing? They've been creating games for the PC owner. The nerd, who like mental challenges - because that was the only sort of person who used to both own a PC, and want to play games. That may not be the case any more, but it's common to find that the PC is the first place many strategy games first find the light of day - RTS games were first seen on the PC, for example - though that was partiallt because a console simply didn't have the processing power back then.
Anyway, I've rambled enough to make my point. Lets hear your views.
Page:
Ha ha, yeah, you have to be a genius to get a PC to work! Heh
Yes, they are, once you get them working however, they're no better or no worse
;)
;)
Well you get more strategy games on the PC, and they're certainly the thinking man's game
Without sounding prejudiced in any way, shape or form, I'd like to agree that I think that the majority of PC games probably are intended for the smarter gamer. Example: As I said in my topic I posted earlier, a not as intelligent (or stupid, if you want to be nasty) gamer would rather play Medal of Honour than Half Life, because it's all out shooting, rather than the methodical pace that Half Life is undooubtedly set at. It's a shame really that all today's society really wanna do is go out there and crack some heads. One of my friends said he prefers Hannibal to Silence of The Lambs because SOTL has "loads" of dialogue in. Dialogue and a decent story make a film/game what it is. I love it, and that's the way they should be, with splodges of NECESSARY violence dotted around. Of course, there's no denying that senseless violence does have it's fun side, as GTA 3 has exhibited.
Arcade conversions don't work too well on PC's, as a rule. Tekken would never work with a keyboard and mouse, and the same can be said of many racer games, albeit to a slightly lesser extent.
So does this force the games released on PC's to be more 'mind stimulating'? Less action, but more complex?
(Ignoring the obvious contradiction of FPS games though, which have done very well on PC's)
All the games by the like of Maxis and Microprose... (X-com series and Sim city games, are a few examples, if you weren't sure) tha are primarily PC games which never do anywhere near as well when (and if) released on consoles. Is this because the PC gamer is fundamentally different to the console gamer?
Could it be that the two have been going in different directions, right from the start? Since as far back as I can remember, consoles have been trying to reproduce Arcade quality software - a feat which they've now all but achieved. The result being that console games now attract the same sort of gamers who would frequent arcades (There's another possible viewpoint on the 'Sony Effect' there, if anyone wants to explore it further. I'm not going to here, however).
What have PC games been doing? They've been creating games for the PC owner. The nerd, who like mental challenges - because that was the only sort of person who used to both own a PC, and want to play games. That may not be the case any more, but it's common to find that the PC is the first place many strategy games first find the light of day - RTS games were first seen on the PC, for example - though that was partiallt because a console simply didn't have the processing power back then.
Anyway, I've rambled enough to make my point. Lets hear your views.
So does this force the games released on PC's to be more 'mind stimulating'? Less action, but more complex?
(Ignoring the obvious contradiction of FPS games though, which have done very well on PC's)
All the games by the like of Maxis and Microprose... (X-com series and Sim city games, are a few examples, if you weren't sure) tha are primarily PC games which never do anywhere near as well when (and if) released on consoles. Is this because the PC gamer is fundamentally different to the console gamer?
Could it be that the two have been going in different directions, right from the start? Since as far back as I can remember, consoles have been trying to reproduce Arcade quality software - a feat which they've now all but achieved. The result being that console games now attract the same sort of gamers who would frequent arcades (There's another possible viewpoint on the 'Sony Effect' there, if anyone wants to explore it further. I'm not going to here, however).
What have PC games been doing? They've been creating games for the PC owner. The nerd, who like mental challenges - because that was the only sort of person who used to both own a PC, and want to play games. That may not be the case any more, but it's common to find that the PC is the first place many strategy games first find the light of day - RTS games were first seen on the PC, for example - though that was partiallt because a console simply didn't have the processing power back then.
Anyway, I've rambled enough to make my point. Lets hear your views.
Page: