PC gaming, and so on
Loading... please wait
So I was thinking about this the other day.
I'm a dedicated, die-hard PC gamer. I don't care for console gaming, largely because the gaming style I really love (hardcore RTS and TBS 4x, wargames, first-person shooters, and flight simulators) are exceedingly difficult to replicate on consoles, so most people don't try. The simplification required to bring them to the console has led Rainbow Six to become Vegas, and Jane's USAF to beget HAWX.
On the other hand, there are still some things you can only do on the PC, and I enjoy them. X-Plane, for instance. X3: Reunion. Civilization. Europa Universalis. Hearts of Iron. And so on and so forth.
Anyway.
Not to cast aspersions on the argument, but people frequently make the claim that console gaming has overtaken PC gaming for four reasons. Two of them are related to the developers: it's easier to develop on consoles, and they have lower rates of piracy. I don't really argue either of those points, which I suspect to, in actuality, account for 90% of the decline of PC gaming (such as it is in decline).
Two of them, however, are supposed arguments of ex-PC gamers. One is the "hardware race" of constantly needing new hardware; the other is the supposed 'simplicity' of playing console games. I have been thinking about this, and colour me sceptical. In the two and a half years between Crysis and Bioshock 2, the recommended requirements have increased from 2GB to 3GB of RAM. With 2 GB of RAM, any system that could play Crysis can play Bioshock 2. Such a system is not all that expensive, and has the advantage of allowing you to do office work, download pornography, watch double rainbow music videos, and so on. With the possible exception of the general poor performance of integrated GPUs, virtually any off the shelf system will play virtually any modern game.
It's possible that the hardware race was an issue five or ten years ago, when we went to first dual and then quad core processors very quickly and graphics processing (and requirements) were increasing by leaps and bounds. Today, Moore's Law is your friend. Hell, there are even some laptops that are workable gaming platforms.
But it's the other argument that I question more. It's true that there was a point where you had to be worried about conflicts, choosing your sound card IRQs, specifying VGA or super-VGA, &c &c. Today, you install Steam. Then you click a game to buy it. Then you click it again to play it. Games for Windows has removed a lot of the nitty-gritty of customisation and installation options. Yes, games provide options that you can set, for resomolutions or what have you. No, you don't have to do that.
So what gives, guys? Do we not like PC games because they're actually more difficult to use and play? Or do we not like PC games because gaming companies have been giving us shit, filtered through a straw?
I'm a dedicated, die-hard PC gamer. I don't care for console gaming, largely because the gaming style I really love (hardcore RTS and TBS 4x, wargames, first-person shooters, and flight simulators) are exceedingly difficult to replicate on consoles, so most people don't try. The simplification required to bring them to the console has led Rainbow Six to become Vegas, and Jane's USAF to beget HAWX.
On the other hand, there are still some things you can only do on the PC, and I enjoy them. X-Plane, for instance. X3: Reunion. Civilization. Europa Universalis. Hearts of Iron. And so on and so forth.
Anyway.
Not to cast aspersions on the argument, but people frequently make the claim that console gaming has overtaken PC gaming for four reasons. Two of them are related to the developers: it's easier to develop on consoles, and they have lower rates of piracy. I don't really argue either of those points, which I suspect to, in actuality, account for 90% of the decline of PC gaming (such as it is in decline).
Two of them, however, are supposed arguments of ex-PC gamers. One is the "hardware race" of constantly needing new hardware; the other is the supposed 'simplicity' of playing console games. I have been thinking about this, and colour me sceptical. In the two and a half years between Crysis and Bioshock 2, the recommended requirements have increased from 2GB to 3GB of RAM. With 2 GB of RAM, any system that could play Crysis can play Bioshock 2. Such a system is not all that expensive, and has the advantage of allowing you to do office work, download pornography, watch double rainbow music videos, and so on. With the possible exception of the general poor performance of integrated GPUs, virtually any off the shelf system will play virtually any modern game.
It's possible that the hardware race was an issue five or ten years ago, when we went to first dual and then quad core processors very quickly and graphics processing (and requirements) were increasing by leaps and bounds. Today, Moore's Law is your friend. Hell, there are even some laptops that are workable gaming platforms.
But it's the other argument that I question more. It's true that there was a point where you had to be worried about conflicts, choosing your sound card IRQs, specifying VGA or super-VGA, &c &c. Today, you install Steam. Then you click a game to buy it. Then you click it again to play it. Games for Windows has removed a lot of the nitty-gritty of customisation and installation options. Yes, games provide options that you can set, for resomolutions or what have you. No, you don't have to do that.
So what gives, guys? Do we not like PC games because they're actually more difficult to use and play? Or do we not like PC games because gaming companies have been giving us shit, filtered through a straw?
| The Other Alex 31.08.2010 - 3h31 |
Well, I to am a rather avid PC gamer, though far from the "hardcore" type of classification. I prefer PC over console for a number of reason, which for the sake of argument I'll list a few of them. 1: Very little hassle with discs/cartridges: This isn't so much the case nowadays what with the availability of all three of the current nextgen systems being able to store entire games on their hard drives. But in the days before them, this was rather nice, when a majority of games, once installed, did not actually require the disc to be enjoyed, and with the follow of Steam it's only become easier. 2. The full game scope: This one just goes for how infinitely broad the PC gaming goes. While many games offer both PC and console ports, PC has an infinitely larger library of games. If Generic Mud Brown Shooter #66 isn't what you're looking for right now, then you have the ease of simply logging online from that very same machine, and browsing about for other games that are (gasp) free to download and play in full. Many of these games are generally simpler than the mega corporation, digitally remastered-than-remastered again games, but they change up the usual flow of games for a time toil the love for the games you paid for to return. Most games on the console networks require payment (in most cases $1-5) for similar work. 3: Updates, Patches, and Expansions: For this argument I'll be mentioning two games in particular that are perfect examples of this argument. Left4Dead and Left4Dead 2; a pair of very similar FPS games set in a zombie apocalypse scenario. In recent months there was an update for these games that included a new campaign for each, as well as new game modes. For the proud owners on PC, these new levels and modes game with a simple, free patch, whereas the console owners had to pay a fee to get the new stuff. This process is ongoing as well, as a new campaign for the latter game is also being planned for release in the coming months, following in the same plan. A more simplified showing of this comes under console game map packs, which are purchased to gain from 3-10 new maps for a chosen game, whereas a PC player is given the map free of charge simply by joining a server containing the map, and downloading it from them. 4: The last one I'll touch upon for now is simply this; pay to play. With most games on PC (excluded certain MMOs), so long as you own the game and have an internet connection, you are free to play that game online with other people around the world. However, to do the same with a console (atleast, with the XBox 360 and PS3) You are required to pay a monthly fee to connect to their network to then play online. In the end, while upgrading hardware for a PC to play newer games may seem troublesome, in the long run, a console owner makes the same payments, but instead of for hardware, it's for all the extra bells and whistles. |
| Comrade Alex 31.08.2010 - 10h59 |
You raise a number of interesting points. I think the convergence of games-on-hard-drives and games-via-Steam/Direct2Drive/Impulse/whatever have effectively put the two in the same boat. I would be surprised if the load times between "wanting to play Bioshock" and "am now playing Bioshock" are substantially different between the two systems. Two and three are, however, very serious advantages over console play. I would add only the ability for PC gamers to add in modifications and expansions of their own. This is especially pronounced in games that are driven by user content (flight simulators tend to fall into this), but I will note that Just Cause 2 and Just Cause 2 with bolopatch are, in fact, completely different games—and the latter is much, much better. Incidentally, I know of at least four other Alices, including my boss. One of these days we are going to rise up together. For now, whichever Alex you are, thanks for the insight. +ca |
| The Other Alex 31.08.2010 - 11h24 |
Ah yes, user content. Self-made public maps and mods, while generally poorly done, do have a couple gems worthy of having been part of the finished product. I don't want to sound like I'm trodding on console gamer's hand, but PC does also tend to have a more open interface that allows the creative and intelligent folk show the rest of their community a new experience. Also, along those lines, another point I was going to make originally, but cut since the post had been lengthy enough, is the access to the developer's console during gameplay. This is all but impossible on consoles, where the closest thing are long strings of seemingly random button combinations to activate a limited number of 'cheats' that game developers decided to release. As a PC gamer, playing with the tilde (~) key only further gives the players access to enjoyment. So long as you can navigate through the commands ofcourse. But truly, these two aspects are further evidence that PC is superior. |