Gaming Alliance to Save PC Gaming? @ Mercury News

Brother None said:

Isn't that a bit of a simplification, economically?

Click to expand...

Well, it was all of one paragraph. What do you expect?

It's good to see somebody else besides Microsoft doing something about PC gaming. Microsoft has done nothing but fuck it up for seven years. They are the #1 culprit responsible for the shitty state of PC gaming. I don't think that they are sincere at all about it. Nvidia, Intel, and AMD might be different. But even these companies have helped contribute by making deals to provide extremely low cost hardware for consoles that you and I could never buy for our PC for the same cost.

doctor_kaz said:

It's good to see somebody else besides Microsoft doing something about PC gaming. Microsoft has done nothing but fuck it up for seven years. They are the #1 culprit responsible for the shitty state of PC gaming.

Click to expand...

I think the clear problem is that MS doesnt get any money from the PC games like they do from every xbox game. There is no real incentive to support pc gaming.

It's hard to say. They have a huge incentive to see the platform succeed, even though they don't get income from the games themselves. They are, indeed, acting like they don't care.

doctor_kaz said:

It's hard to say. They have a huge incentive to see the platform succeed, even though they don't get income from the games themselves. They are, indeed, acting like they don't care.

Click to expand...

What huge incentive is that? Windows? Even without pc gaming people would still buy plenty of windows OS for work/home stuff like web and paying bills. Allthough one could argue that the home stuff is doable on xbox too - which would be even better for MS. People would buy MS computers with MS operating system and MS games.

Windows would still serve well in office work. It would just loose its status as a home computer that would be replaced by a console with wireless keyboard and mouse.

zakhal said:

What incentive is that? Even without pc gaming people would still buy plenty of windows OS for work/home stuff like web and paying bills..

Click to expand...

You can do all of that stuff with Windows 98. You don't have to buy a new PC to do this. Gamers drive hardware sales. I have bought five operating systems in the past decade. Without gaming, I probably would have bought maybe two at the most.

You can also do that stuff on a Mac. Arguably the biggest drawbacks of Macs have always been the weak gaming library and the inability to upgrade the gaming parts. I don't think it's a coincidenct that Microsoft's stock has tanked in the past seven or eight years while PC gaming has gone to shit and Apple's market share has gone up.

ffbj said:

Hmm, it seems a bit odd that those who are, in many ways, responsible for the sorry state of pc gaming are going to save it.

Click to expand...

I agree.

It's like having criminals solve the murder mystery.

I've said it before, from Solitaire to Spore....as long as there are PCs, there will be PC gaming.

Who cares where the games come from, as long as they are bug-free and fun.

I've seen one console after another and nothing about them, with the possible exception of the Wii, is truly innovative.

I can play an RPG from 2007 and from 1983 on a PC. Why on earth would I want to be locked down by a console and it's manufacturer's demands?

SacrificiaLamb said:

Create a 'problem' or an event, engender a reaction (usually fear or outrage), and then offer a solution which guides the public to the desired result. This is how governments and the media function for the most part, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

Click to expand...

Exzellent analysis !

Yes, this sounds right. Reminds me of the "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein (seems to be an *very* interesting book !)

LordRac said:

I've said it before, from Solitaire to Spore....as long as there are PCs, there will be PC gaming.

Click to expand...

In some form or another, sure. But if the PC as a mass-market gaming platform dies, PC gaming will be where Linux or Mac gaming is now.

The mass market drives the technology: the video and sound cards, the API's to drive them, the game engines to make games on. Niche games can make use of this technology just as well as mainstream games. While I don't want to see PC games become all Bioshock, all the time, I don't want to see them become all Spiderweb, all the time, either.

Most of the games I've enjoyed best in recent years have been somewhere in the middle ground between the two -- last year, The Witcher and S.T.A.L.K.E.R., to name two. I would like to see more studios move into this space -- either from "below," as small studios that make full, creative use of the technology that's available (e.g. Age of Decadence), or from above, with bigger studios committing to "mid-budget" games that take more creative risks but save a bunch by working within the constraints of a stable engine and spending relatively more resource on story and less resources on better explosions.

To get this, the PC *needs* the mass market. Therefore, in my book, this counts as very good news -- and I very much hope we'll see some concrete results from it too.

I'm pretty sure that the only reason for AMD Intel NVIDIA or Ati to participate in this. Is the fact that in the PC gaming market people to play the newest titles, need upgrading computers every half a year, with new graphic cards and processors. And they are made by whom?
The same goes for Microsoft, how the hell they will sell their future operating systems, when PC is becoming the tool only for professionals.

And it doesn't look to be a best news ever, 'cos I think it may bring the consolization of the PC games. Making PC game market more meaningful could mean "Lets try to make games more welcoming for the new players, a combat using only one button is a great idea!" or every other console's crapideas

Yes, because all console games only use one button for combat.

PC gaming will be PC gaming and console gaming will be console gaming. I'm just sad that the adventure game genre of '96-'98 has gone all but dead.

Thaurin said:

adventure game genre of '96-'98 has gone all but dead.

Click to expand...

Not really: Look at Europe and at what dtp does !

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Not really: Look at Europe and at what dtp does !

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I miss things like FMV! They do still release quality adventure games, but good RPG's still get released, too. Just not in the capacity and with the enthusiasm I witnessed ten years ago.

Thaurin said:

Yes, because all console games only use one button for combat.

PC gaming will be PC gaming and console gaming will be console gaming. I'm just sad that the adventure game genre of '96-'98 has gone all but dead.

Click to expand...

I think that genre died because its best parts were absorbed into other games. (e.g. Puzzle-heavy shooters like Half-Life). I don't really miss them. Other than a few classics, a lot of adventure games had lame crappy puzzles.

Corwin said:

Strange that no mention was made of Origin, their biggest 'stuff-up' IMO!!

Click to expand...

Apart from this bit you mean:

Pulling up a slide with developers Bullfrog, Origin and Westwood listed, Riccitiello admitted "we've had our share of failures with acquisitions."

"These were great studios that created great products and yet these places no longer exist today," he said. "Something broke, it didn't happen as we or they dreamed it. I would state simply that we at EA blew it, and I was involved so I can say I blew it."

Click to expand...

?

Thaurin said:

Yeah, but I miss things like FMV!

Click to expand...

What does FMV mean ?

doctor_kaz said:

I think that genre died because its best parts were absorbed into other games. (e.g. Puzzle-heavy shooters like Half-Life). I don't really miss them. Other than a few classics, a lot of adventure games had lame crappy puzzles.

Click to expand...

You cut everything down to just "puzzles". If you want puzzles, why don't youn play Puzzle Quest, then ?

Adventures are about story, not about "puzzles" !

doctor_kaz said:

I think that genre died because its best parts were absorbed into other games. (e.g. Puzzle-heavy shooters like Half-Life). I don't really miss them. Other than a few classics, a lot of adventure games had lame crappy puzzles.

Click to expand...

Its just one example but the years back to-be sequel for sam and max was cancelled because som market-research said that the people who bought adventure games had suddenly disappeared. They didnt say where though. Personally I believe the UFOs had hijacked them.

They released som real neat 3D adventure games back in late 90s. They were real adventure games unlike half-life that was mostly a pure shooter imho.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

What does FMV mean ?

Click to expand...

Full Motion Video?

Alrik Fassbauer said:

What does FMV mean ?



You cut everything down to just "puzzles". If you want puzzles, why don't youn play Puzzle Quest, then ?

Adventures are about story, not about "puzzles" !

Click to expand...

Gameplay-wise, they were about puzzles, and the gameplay in a lot of them really sucked. The puzzles and, to a lesser extent, the story elements got absorbed into a lot of other genres of gaming.

Also, I think that the best games have given players open-ended problems and not just puzzles. Deus Ex is my favorite example of this. How do I open this door? I can blow it up with a LAM. I can pick the lock. I can shoot it with a rocket. I can bypass it by finding another way in. Adventure games never offered this kind of problem solving.

Also, I love the hell out of Puzzle Quest. The "puzzle" is kind of a misnomer though. It's not so much a puzzle game as a strategy game.

I don't think I made myself clear with the "Joe Average consumer" remark. I'm not suggesting they do any of the following:

1) dumb down all games on the PC
2) take away anyone's ability to customize their system
3) stop hardware innovation

There are other ways to help. Just standardizing and simplifying the "is my hardware up to playing this game?" formula would be great. Seriously, have you looked at a vid card box recently? All the "shaders" and "graphics pipes" and "bus speeds" and performance graphs on frame rates and blah blah blah blah blah is great for us geeks that get into that stuff. But Joe Average is quite obviously going to be scared away. Just as an off the cuff idea, they could come up with a simple system of rating games demands on hardware and the hardware itself. So, for instance, they could have a scale of 1-4 where 1 is low performance hardware and 4 is high-end, cutting edge rig needed. Then, put a number on the game box, and a number on the PC and/or Vid card and bingo! You've just made it easy on Joe Average to know that if he buys a PC with a 3 on it, he can play any game with a 3 or lower on it.