Our friends at Gamasutra are running a great feature article theorizing that Nintendo is bringing back the Adventure Game genre. Games like Phoenix Wright and the upcoming Hotel Dusk on the DS are making the gaming pundits realize that the long thought for dead genre may have been only sleeping.

My personal theory is that the DS and the Wii have mouse like precision pointing and dragging. People like consoles. The numbers don't lie. People like playing in the living room. People like not having to worry if they have Direct Drone X400 drivers installed or if the game requires a Radia N800 XPro video card or better. Most importantly publishers like that it is more difficult to pirate/share/backup games on the consoles.

The d-pad/analog stick control scheme only really worked for certain types of games. Pointing, clicking, dragging were clumsy at best. With the DS and more recently the Wii developers can make games with mechanics that has been available for the PC for over 25 years. Better still developers can develop on a standard and secure platform.

It is my not-so-humble opinion that not only will we see Adventure games on the Wii, RTS style games will also have a very strong offering. Was the mouse the only thing that kept PC gaming alive? Is the Wii a PC killer in sheep's clothing, or just another chicken little claiming PC gaming is dead?

PC gaming will never die. :)

Don't tell that to this guy at my school, he's under the impression that all PC games "suck" because they don't have the graphics of a 360. He looks at me funny when I tell him that some people play games for other reasons besides graphics. I can't stand that guy.

You can get the 360 graphics on a PC with a game that supports it and a system that handles it. But, it is true that although great graphics are wonderful, there are more important things in a game.

That's okay. By the end of 2007, you'll be able to tell him that all consoles "suck" because they don't have the graphics of the latest PC hardware available.

Graphics, what graphics? Hell, I'm played better games using ASCII characters that most of those eye-candy games.

It either public knowledge or pretty much subjective opinion that person(s) who require astounding graphics as a requirement of gameplay usually have the equivalent IQ of a doorknob.

Heh, that's sad. I've been playing this MMORPG since yesterday, and told my brother and a friend of mine about it. The first thing they asked me after I told them I was playing it was: is it "pretty"? Damn, I think games are like girls for most of men: they're first interested in the looks, then in the rest.

On a related note, last week I was talking to some friends of mine, and we mentioned The Dig ('cause I was going to play it again, since I had just finished reading the book). A friend of mine said to me "hey, I have the game, I can lend you". And I said "great, The Dig is a great game". And he replied "yeah, but those graphics are awful". "Awful? - I said - they're great", and he said "yeah, for the time it was released, yes"... Well, needless to say, I tried to convince him (without success) that those are great graphics even today, even more if you take games from a historical perspective, but still great.

I've been trying to explain the same thing to my wife. She won't play anything with "ugly graphics", i.e. anything released before 2001 or so.

15 years ago, a mouse was still a luxury item for the PC.

Uh?? No, I think mice were quite common, and cheap, in 1992. Windows 3.1 wasn't exactly a luxury platform. :)

Anyway, it's not so much the "mouse, stupid", as it is the keyboard.. stupid.

Au contraire, Windows 3.1 was quite the luxury platform. A PC with colour graphics was hardly an impulse buy in 1992.

Well, I certainly didn't buy anything that was luxury back then and I had color graphics. It may have started as CGA, then EGA, and finally up to VGA/SVGA, but I always had color graphics on my PC (I didn't own a PC when all that was available was monochrome).

As for mice, mice were used in games for DOS as well... even before Win3x. They weren't exactly luxury, either.

Right. Maybe a PC was luxury in 1992 (even that is debatable, maybe in 1989 or 1990, at least for gaming purposes), but a mouse was standard equipment long before 92.

Aye. I bought my first PC in 1991, complete with mouse. The mouse was an 'extra' that I had to specially add to the system, though. I never saw the point of Windows 3.x (Only got into Windows when 95 came out), but the mouse was essential for point-and-click adventure gaming!

Incidentally, I was the only kid in my entire year at school who had a PC. Not surprising, as my 16MHz 286 cost me over £1,000!

You paid £1000 in 1991 for a 286? I bought one 1989 for that amount. I then bought a 386 in 1991 again for about £1000.

The 286 had an insane amount of 1MB of RAM and a 20MB hard disk and all the nice stuff, including a line printer.

Did you drive it home in the backseat of your Porsche?

Now, now Iggy. Not everyone is as poor as you. :)

Of course not, then there wouldn't be a market for Macintosh computers, Porsches and £1000 computers.

Uh? I didn't have a Porsche back then..

Besides the 286 was actually bought by my mum as they had this computer deal thing at her company. I did buy the 386 myself, but then again I had been working all summer so I had some savings. I figured I needed a decent computer for uni.

That is the same as my first PC. Let's see... that was in either 1989 or 1990. I believe that was for $1200 (USD). A month later, I could have gotten a 386 for that same price. :(

What DOS did yours come with? I had DR DOS 5.0 on mine and that eventually progressed to MS DOS 5.0 and slowly worked up to 6.22.

Hm, only $1200? Then mine might have been earlier because I do remember it costing more than 10,000 FIM and 1 EUR = roughly 6 FIM. It was supposed to be a cheap deal as my moms company (Rautaruukki, a very big steel manufacturer) made this joint purchase for any employee who wished to order one. I think they deliverd well over 1000 machines.They were then paid by docking off money from the pay check for two years. Not a bad deal considering the "loan" was interest free. I just remember having used that one for at least two years and since I bought a new one (that 386) in my first year at uni (which was 91-92) I figured it must have been 1989, 1988 just sounds quite early as I think I only got my C64 in 1985 and it feels like I played with it forever...

You must be very proud. I know I would *laughs geekly*.

I had a trackball for my Atari 8-bit. For those who've never owned one... a trackball is rougly the idea of spinning the ball with your finger directly (think of an upside-down mouse). For all intents and purposes, it had all of the same functionality of the mouse, but was barely used as not a lot of the software even thought about supporting it.

Trackballs didn't come with the standard computer bundle. I believe they were marketed at artists and the few games that supported them (I honestly can only remember a Track and Field game... no, not the famous one by atari... a different one, that supported it)

Yes, but your Atari 8-bit was no PC.

I have a lot of trackballs myself, they're great when your desk is small. I think Atari's trackball was mainly intended for Missile Command, which was a very early use of a trackball.

Well actually it was a PC, before IBM co-opted the term for their own use (same thing regarding "DOS" actually). But yeah yeah... I know what you mean... it definitely isn't the same as an Intel x86 computer. I just don't see why it matters in this case. While Atari handled the mouse slightly differently as hardware was concerned... but it was still considered an input device and programs still had to be designed to use that input. If a DOS or Windows game isn't designed to support the mouse... it won't work. Period. well... excepting some piece of 3rd party unofficial emulation software that can map key presses to mouse movements :)

Seriously, if you want to suggest the mouse is the best gaming feature of the PC... it's time to attend a Forum Trolls Anonymous meeting.

Hmm...I do believe that the mouse/keyboard combo is the easiest way to play a game. Because of gamepads and controllers that were designed with arcadey button-mashing in mind there are whole genres that can't be played on consoles (real-time strategy, for example). Even most console shooters have to compensate for their control scheme with extra-generous hit detection and auto-aiming.

The more I hear about the Wiimote the more I like it...

1. Console games can be backed up. I can go to any number of emulation sites and take my pick, not to mention DVD downloads on p2p for the more modern stuff. But I don't do any of that because I hate console gaming, just saying that I could...

2. There are PC graphics as good (if not better) than the 360. The difference is price. It's far more expensive, no doubt. "They make you pay, but you can play."

3. Drivers are for optional equipment. Anyone that's savy enough to buy and use optional equipment isn't worried about installing drivers I would imagine... I mean nobody showed me anything on a PC when I was younger, I figured most of it out myself. Drivers were the easiest part I'd imagine.

4. It's the control options, not just the mouse that keeps PC gaming alive. Not to mention, the multiplayer abilities which consoles will never match. I can play on private online networks. Xbox live go down, or raise their price to an unacceptable level, where are you going to play?

I can get on an Amiga, still play QuakeWorld with people on PCs and Macs, join a clan, register for a tournament, all while playing on Nancy McGregor's dedicated server out in Dallas, Texas, and have thousands of screaming fans watch it over the internet without having to pay a monthly fee or be confined to a big corporation's network that doesn't let me play anywhere else, or that dictates which titles do or do not make it to my platform to begin with.

That's without mentioning user created content, mods, a wider variety of game designers and companies making products, and just in general higher quality games. Don't forget, it's mostly PC games that get dumbed down then ported to consoles, not the other way around.

5. Let's not forget, the gap between consoles and PCs was narrowed by consoles becoming PC's themselves. But now keeping the price reasonable for newer consoles is becoming more and more difficult, and this is a problem considering that price is a console's most attractive characteristic when compared to PC gaming.

If the most important thing to a person in their gaming is to bring a piece of equipment home, plug it in, and play, and everything else is a back seat to that, then a console is the way to go.

The fact that most console based gaming magazines advertise Bubbalicious, and PC gaming mags advertise jobs or colleges should say something.

Very nicely summed up. :)

In all seriousness, I think this is close to truth. Keyboard + mouse combination is one of those things that make playing games on PC unique. The ability to enter text, and the ability to touch and drag things, instead of just pressing buttons.

If consoles had the same library of games PC has (including all those mouse-driven genres like adventures, FPSs, RTSs), I doubt people would use PC for gaming any more.

I doubt that Oleg. Check my post for many reasons as to why I feel PC gaming is superior aside from mouse and KB.

I mean, consoles don't use the mouse and KB but people play them.

My prediction?

The big name companies will vest in console games, leaving a big market for Indie game developers. This is actually a good thing for both the PC gamer and the PC game makers. Why?

A return of games that are low in budget but high in creativity. No licensing fees for developing games for the PC. Easy access by downloading Indie games from the Net.

Some big game companies will take that route, but others are unlikely to. I have a feeling that Blizzard will stick to the PC market, for example.

And, I agree that the increase in indie games for the PCs is great. I've enjoyed a LOT of those releases. They bring a fresh creativity to the gaming scene that we haven't really seen in years.

Not true. As was mentioned, console prices are increasing dramatically because they are becoming PCs themselves. I can keep my PC updated to play the latest games for pretty low cost. I'd have to buy new consoles to do that for much higher cost. Also, consoles don't allow for much in the way of modding or user-created content (also mentioned already) and that is a HUGE draw for PC gamers. Throw in the control system (not just that you have a mouse/keyboard, but that you can program most games to use whatever keys/buttons you want to suit your own play style) and you outclass the consoles even more.

The excuses console gamers give for PC gaming being not as good are almost always:

1) It's expensive to keep your computer upgraded.
2) You have to worry about compatibility.
3) You have to worry about drivers.

Those are the leading reasons console gamers give for PC gaming being not as good. The way console gaming is increasing in price, it will make it even easier for me to show how much cheaper it is to maintain a PC at top quality than to continually buy new consoles. Compatibility issues are rare if you buy parts from major companies -- sticking with nVidia or ATI graphics cards rather than no-name (or Intel or onboard) cards will prevent all compatibility issues for graphics other than perhaps not having a good enough card. At that point, it's time to upgrade graphics, which is generally pretty cheap unless you go all out and get the best thing out, which is usually unnecessary. You can get a great card that will run everything at full speed and maximum graphics for under $200 easily. And drivers are VERY easy to install these days. It isn't like it was back in the days of DOS. Back then, you *did* need to know about computers in order to install drivers properly. Now, you go to their website, go to their drivers section, download, run, possibly restart... and you're done. Not exactly a difficult thing to do.

In the end, PC gaming isn't as much trouble as people say and isn't as expensive as people think. And when you consider how much more is available for it (not just the game library), consoles just can't compete with it.

It's true that drivers are not difficult to install now; but for consoles, you don't need any drivers. Why should I worry about that if all I want is to play games? Why do I need to buy upgrades all the time, and worry whether they'll work fine with the rest of my hardware or not? Why should I worry about compatibility? I needed to download patches for almost every modern PC game I have. For one of them, I needed to buy a new version, because no patches corrected graphic card-related problems. Why should I worry about the countless bugs? About the loading times, the poor performance? Why? Because I can download modes, fool around with settings? What do I care for that? I'm not a PC technician or programmer! I want to go home, put a game disc into the drive, and play, damn it!

As I said, you guys are all connected to PC professionally. You do things with it. That's why you like it. You feel comfortable with it, because it's something you know well. But show me somebody who is not interested in the technical stuff, in programming etc. - he will tell you without hesitation that the only reason he plays games on PCs is because many of them are not available on consoles.

"Consoles don't need any drivers" And if we've established that installing drivers on a PC is now so easy that a caveman can do it, what's the difference?

"Why do I need to buy upgrades all the time" You mean you still play on an Atari 2600, Pong, or maybe a ColecoVision because you don't buy upgrades? Consoles require constant upgrading.

"Why should I worry about compatibility?" This is a thing of the past. If you're running say, Windows XP, and the game is designed for XP (kinda like running a PS2 game on a PS2), I'll bet dollars to cents you won't have compatibility issues. You're talking about old problems.

"Patches?" Patches improve gameplay and performance. The ability to patch is a good thing, whereas console trashware remains trashware.

"New Version" Wait, what new version of a game did you have to buy because of hardware problems? I'd like to hear about this one. You had to buy an entirely new version of a game that you already owned because of a hardware upgrade? What game is that?

"Why should I worry about loading times and poor performance?" Consoles have some of the WORST loading times, and not only that, frequent ones. Meanwhile I've seen PS3 games that bring the system to its knees all the while Sony claiming that there exists no software that taxes the system. Laff...

"As I said, you guys are all connected to PC professionally. You do things with it. That's why you like it. You feel comfortable with it, because it's something you know well." I'm not connected to a PC professionally, not at all. I prefer PC games because aside from the options, controls, multiplayer, all of that, the games are just better. Lets be honest, did you choose console gaming because you were frustrated with configuring PC's, or because you liked the console titles better? I don't personally know of anyone that decided, "well, I'll just play console games because I failed with configuring a PC." that really worked with a PC to begin with.

"But show me somebody who is not interested in the technical stuff, in programming etc. - he will tell you without hesitation that the only reason he plays games on PCs is because many of them are not available on consoles."

A good friend of mine is a console junkie. He plays and collects stupid crap like MegaMan and PunchOut games. He knows nothing about computers. He knows as much about computers as a duck-billed platypus knows about the stock market. But he is now a PC gamer after seeing some of the games I play. After demonstrating some options, multiplayer abilities, and games like EVE, Company of Heroes, and even old stuff like Wizardry VI, he purchased a PC for the first time. He has a piece of paper by his computer that I printed out that tells him how to start the game he wants to play.

And if we've established that installing drivers on a PC is now so easy that a caveman can do it, what's the difference?

It's not a question of difficulty; it's the question of time and negative influence on the nervous system. It frustrates me to search for correct drivers and configuration and what not. It frustrates me when the game refuses to work, when it crashes, when it gives me error messages, when it loads too slowly. Playing on PC is a torture. Unless you like those kind of things, which you guys obviously do. You like fooling around with computers, that's why you don't understand how come it can be a problem.

You mean you still play on an Atari 2600, Pong, or maybe a ColecoVision because you don't buy upgrades? Consoles require constant upgrading.

That's not upgrading. That's buying a different console. I go to a shop and I buy a console; I know that every single copy of every single game released for this console will work perfectly on it. I don't have to worry that my new game won't run correctly with the brand new Nvidia card I bought. Or that the new kind of RAM is incompatible with my old motherboard. Or thousands of other "upgrading problems".

Patches improve gameplay and performance. The ability to patch is a good thing, whereas console trashware remains trashware.

In most cases patches just make the damn thing playable. There is no trashware on consoles. Content-wise, yes, but not from technical point of view. Console games run properly. And nothing will convince me that hunting for the right hardware, drivers, and patches is more fun than putting a game into a drive and playing it.

Wait, what new version of a game did you have to buy because of hardware problems? I'd like to hear about this one. You had to buy an entirely new version of a game that you already owned because of a hardware upgrade? What game is that?

Xuanyuan Jian: Cang zhi Tao. I had to buy a Taiwanese version because there was no patch for Chinese version. The newest patch made the game playable under the newest Nvidia card. So I had to buy the other release and download the patch.

Gothic didn't run at all until I found the right patch. Vampire: Bloodlines didn't run until I patched it. And even then it ran very slowly. Countless other games crashed.

I don't want to go through this. The only reason why I still use a PC for playing games is because all of the above games, and many more, are available only for it. But I'll be damned if I buy the PC version of Knights of the old Republic. I was much more happy to spend my money on an Xbox; now I know it works every time, flawlessly, and forever.

Consoles have some of the WORST loading times, and not only that, frequent ones.

That's simply not true. Some console games have long loading times, but that's nothing compared to what I experienced with PC games.

Lets be honest, did you choose console gaming because you were frustrated with configuring PC's, or because you liked the console titles better?

The main reason was to be able to play games that were not available on a PC. But if a game is released for both console and PC, I'd go with console version any time of the day - because of the frustration connected to PC.

After demonstrating some options, multiplayer abilities, and games like EVE, Company of Heroes, and even old stuff like Wizardry VI, he purchased a PC for the first time.

So what does this prove? It proves there are great PC-only games, in order to play which, unfortunately, you have to purchase a PC. Look, PC games make more than half of my game collection. There is no doubt that there are many great PC-exclusive games; certainly more than great console-exclusive games. But I wasn't talking about games. I was talking about the machines themselves. That PC game library beats console game library is not a question.

Just for some perspective, there's always firmware updates. Off the top of my head, the PS3 is having display problems on certain TVs which may or may not be solved by firmware. The PS2 had all kinds of problems with DVD playback if you owned an original system. The solution was to get a cd-rom from Sony (which also came packaged with periphials like the Remote Control) in order to update it.


There's a list of a couple of dozen games for the PS1 in the US that won't play on certain (early) models of PS1 consoles. Other games (for instance, Final Fantasy IX) merely suffer degredation during certain sequences (usually FMV-related stuff). There's another list of PS1 games that won't play on the PS2. The only solution is to buy a newer console in order to play the game. While I'm picking on the PS1... some games won't work with the Dualshock controllers and crash, while other games require them. And let me throw out one more... The N64 needed a RAM expansion to run some of the later "enhanced" games. My soulcalibur 3 game (ps2) corrupts it's save data. If I were on a PC, I could probably download a patch to handle it. Since I'm on a console, I'm stuck with it. At least it's not like Tactics Ogre (psx) which would routinely wiped the contents of the memory card on a regular basis.

If a game has problems on a PC, it might be able to have those problems patched and fixed
If a game has problems on a console, those problems can cause headaches forever... unless the manufaturer is nice enough to issue replacement media for it's product.

Now granted I'm picking on the Sony systems mostly here, but that's only because I'm not familiar with the issues of every other platform. But I think I've made my point. consoles easier? not if you're among the people screwed by a certain problem with the system.

Now... some of these problems in the latest batch of PCs will go away with "automatic updates" ensuring that everyone is using the very latest firmware possible. But you could say the exact same thing for anyone using the update feature on Windows. And in both cases, this requires the gamer to have the console connected online, which in some cases is not "included with the system" and is an extra buy, not to mention the service to the Internet itself. And anything that's an automatic update isn't necessarily a good thing either, as users of Windows and owners of PSPs can attest to (unstable features, reduced functionality).

Consoles offer the owner less options for expandibility and "unapproved programs" than a PC does... for some people that means it's "easier", as there's a lot less to think about. For others, that just means there are less ways to fix problems when something goes wrong, just return it back to to the store or mail it in.

Platform Wars XXVIII continues...

If playing on a PC is torture, you must be doing some really wrong my friend :) Having these problems that you mention is not normal in this day and age. With XP, directX, and the like PC's are more standardized for gaming than ever. Sure there are some exceptions (which you provide examples of) but the incompatibilities are nowhere near the degree that you're making it out to be. Unless of course you're using a very old system with very new games. Now, with older systems, they were not intended for gaming. The PC was intended to be a business machine, and a productivity device. With there being a demand for gaming however, the PC has come to be more game friendly. But in the old days, running a game on a PC could be very difficult, but at the same time you were sorta doing something that you weren't supposed to do. It's kind of like those guys that turn their X-box into a fully functional PC. I've seen them browsing the web with IE, sending email, using keyboards, playing PC only games and the like. It's possible to do it, but you're going to have problems. The same holds true for older PC gaming. But now, that is changing.

Here's something to think about; if gaming is so difficult and frustrating for so many on the PC, why did PC gaming not only survive, but grow exponentially? I doubt that the humble mouse is responsible for decades of PC gaming in spite of insane difficulties attributed to the platform.

Buying a new console is upgrading, at least in the console world. Of course you can pretty much rest assured that any game released for a particular platform will run (although there are some exceptions here as well), what happens when developers stop releasing games for the console in question? You upgrade, by buying an entirely new console, new games, new controllers (that are always different with the exception of the playstation series), new cables, and the like.

In most cases, PC games are playable right off the shelf. Patches help to improve upon the game. I don't for a second believe that by default a PC release is unplayable until patched, even though there is a patch for just about every PC game ever released for Windows.

As for the examples you provide, I concede that there are games which may be unplayable or buggy, but it's the exception rather than the rule. With Xuanyuan Jian: Cang zhi Tao, that is the super rare exception. Vampire: Bloodlines is notorious for being troublesome, but in no way reflects a standard of what to expect with PC games.

As far as loading times go, the PS1, 2, and 3 all have horrific loading times compared to my PC. The PSP is notorious for frequent, long load times. The gamecube isn't as bad, but it's loading less data and working with more memory. With PS1, you can't convince me that a 2x CD-ROM drive swapping out a 500 megabyte game with 2MB of RAM has faster, fewer loading times than PC's of the time or that a PS2 with 32MB RAM and a 4x DVD drive can swap 1GB worth of game data in and out of memory faster than modern PC's with 8x the memory and drive specs, and so forth. My personal experience is that PC load times are faster and less frequent, but hey just about every PC's these days are different and the software running on them can greatly affect speed so it's no wonder that we have differing experiences.

What does it prove? I was giving you the example that you were saying doesn't exist. I could go in depth and describe how he doesn't touch his SNES anymore because he likes playing MegaMan on his PC with the X-arcade controller, but it's largely irrelevant.

In any case I just want to be clear about something here; it's not my intention to bash console gamers, I'm just pointing out that there is a lot more than just the use of a mouse that keeps PC gaming going.

I agree with Oleg. The only reason I stick with my PC is that she's my first mate. Regardless of how irritating "she" may be... She gave me a lot of fine dang memories though...

My first PC WAS a console. Its called a "pc booter.". No installation neccesary. No mouse. Insert disc, play game.

Atari had a joystick back then. Memory card, etc. Which did I prefer playing? PC Booter. Why? Console games tend to only require a maximum IQ of 60.

Hardcore, hard thinking, difficult games usually only tend to exist on the PC. But that's probably because of the keyboard...not the mouse.

I think that still applies today Har-Har!!!

EDIT: Stupid forum can't handle quotes. Each quote is by Oleg and are blockquoted so you can see them.

It's not a question of difficulty; it's the question of time and negative influence on the nervous system. It frustrates me to search for correct drivers and configuration and what not. It frustrates me when the game refuses to work, when it crashes, when it gives me error messages, when it loads too slowly. Playing on PC is a torture. Unless you like those kind of things, which you guys obviously do. You like fooling around with computers, that's why you don't understand how come it can be a problem.

All of the major hardware companies I've used have drivers in basically the same location as each other... under Support>Drivers or simply Drivers. The wording may vary slightly, but it's the same thing. Finding them is very easy to do and you only need to update them maybe once every 6 months or so. You can update more frequently, but you don't need to. And there isn't any configuration necessary for drivers. You talk about drivers as if you're downloading them every time you want to play a game instead of a couple of times a year.

That's not upgrading. That's buying a different console. I go to a shop and I buy a console; I know that every single copy of every single game released for this console will work perfectly on it. I don't have to worry that my new game won't run correctly with the brand new Nvidia card I bought. Or that the new kind of RAM is incompatible with my old motherboard. Or thousands of other "upgrading problems".

Buying an entirely new system instead of upgrading is not exactly a good thing. Sure, it's easier, but you could choose that option with a PC as well. Instead, you have the option to just upgrade certain things that need it. If you don't know how, you can always take it in to have someone do it for you. Depending where you got your computer from (if you didn't build it), you can usually take the model or serial number and find out quickly and easily what is supported for upgrading it. Or, you can always call and ask the place you bought it or the manufacturer if you have trouble figuring it out yourself. Yes, it is slightly more work, but it not as difficult as you make it out to be. And, again, you don't do this often. You usually don't need to upgrade anything except about every 2 years or so unless you're buying really cheap parts that are already outdated when you buy them.

In most cases patches just make the damn thing playable. There is no trashware on consoles. Content-wise, yes, but not from technical point of view. Console games run properly. And nothing will convince me that hunting for the right hardware, drivers, and patches is more fun than putting a game into a drive and playing it.

That's not really true. Yes, some games aren't playable (or are too much trouble to play) without a patch. Yet, most of them play fine without patches. Patches help to fix issues not found prior to selling the game. Things that a console can't fix. And, yet again, you talk about this as if it's something you have to do every time you play. Most games get a few patches and that's it. Online games tend to get more just because of multiplayer balancing issues. In any case, you patch it once and then you don't have to do it again until you either reinstall it for some reason or another patch comes out months or years down the road. Also, more and more games have automatic patchers that will do everything for you, though manually getting the patches is pretty easy to do.

Xuanyuan Jian: Cang zhi Tao. I had to buy a Taiwanese version because there was no patch for Chinese version. The newest patch made the game playable under the newest Nvidia card. So I had to buy the other release and download the patch.

Now... here is perhaps where your biggest problem lies. I honestly don't know what the differences are between releases in different countries, but it could very well be that the versions released in China (and their patches) aren't quite up to the standard that I see in the US. Perhaps I am wrong, but seeing that you had to get a version from another country to make it work... that's the way it seems.

Gothic didn't run at all until I found the right patch. Vampire: Bloodlines didn't run until I patched it. And even then it ran very slowly. Countless other games crashed.

From the sounds of it, you're running an older computer that is out of date. If you take the time to keep your computer up to date (that isn't too expensive to do... and much cheaper than buying a new console), you won't experience these issues. And, if you don't want to keep it updated, you can always adjust graphics settings to minimum and you'll have fewer issues.

I don't want to go through this. The only reason why I still use a PC for playing games is because all of the above games, and many more, are available only for it. But I'll be damned if I buy the PC version of Knights of the old Republic. I was much more happy to spend my money on an Xbox; now I know it works every time, flawlessly, and forever.

Funny... all of my games (other than the older DOS games, which you might as well consider to be a separate system anyhow) run flawlessly every time. Yes, I occasionally have a game crash, but that's pretty rare if I do put on the current patches. And as I said, that's pretty easy to do and doesn't need to be done often.

That's simply not true. Some console games have long loading times, but that's nothing compared to what I experienced with PC games.

Again, I believe that's your computer being older that is causing that. I've seen the long load times on many different kinds of consoles. And you cannot SKIP the loading screens in most cases. With a PC, you can usually skip the loading screens using ESC or Spacebar or Enter or a mouse click (depending on the game). That speeds loading up greatly. In the end, most games I have are loaded to the menu within 5 seconds and the rest are within 10 seconds. If you have a console, all games will have the minimum loading time of the time it takes to display all of the console garbage screens that you cannot bypass. How often do you need to see Sony's logo, for example?

All of these examples you're giving are out of date examples. If you had something similar to this (**or higher**):

2GHz CPU (I prefer AMD, but Pentium is fine)
512MB RAM (though 1GB is a preferable minimum)
GeForce7000 series or equivalent ATI card
SB Audigy sound card
Windows XP SP2
DirectX 9.0c

... then you wouldn't have any problems with any game released for XP and the majority of games released for Win95-WinXP and even a large number of DOS games. You'd also find out that games run quickly and easily and rarely crash. You could get that hardware for about:

Mobo (if you need a new one to fit a better cpu) - $50-100
CPU - $50-100
RAM - $30-50
Graphics - $100-200
Sound - $50-150

And that system would last you for a couple of years and still play everything that is out (unless something requires Vista--- in which case, you'd need to update the OS). If you go with somewhat better than that minimum, you'd have something that lasts 3-4 years and only miss out of playing a couple of the newest games 3-4 years from now, while most play fine still.

Unless you get the best CPU your mobo can handle, you can usually upgrade your CPU once or twice without changing the mobo and if you have a decent amount of RAM, you don't need to upgrade that very often at all. Sound also doesn't need upgraded often. That leaves CPU and graphics to upgrade every couple of years or so. That's usually fairly cheap to do and isn't very difficult. Right now, you have 3 choices for graphics cards and it's pretty easy to see what you need by looking at the card you already have or just the color of where it plugs into your mobo -- PCI (old), AGP (common, but outdated), or PCI-e (new and cheaper). The CPU is the only real thing you need to figure out when upgrading each time and if you can find out what mobo you have, it's easy to find out what it supports.

The point is that you don't have to do something special every time you play a game. You do it once and it's done. It is really pretty easy to do and considering you don't do it often, it is hardly worth mentioning.

Heh, it seems that neither can you, Riamus. Those are Oleg's quotes, not Iggy's. =D

Touché. (Fixed)

That's pretty much what I have, even slightly better. No, my computer is fine. I've had 5 PCs in my life, and every time there were problems with hardware, drivers, configuration, etc. It can't be all blamed on my Jewish luck, can it? I think there is a fundamental problem in PC gaming. Okay, some games do run smoothly. But, let's say, even if 99% of the games run without trouble, this 1% is enough to make me pray to all buddhas and bodhisattvas that all the good games will be made for consoles in the future.

Yeah, I think I've had about five PC's as well (hard to keep count when you change one part here and another there) and the last three have been far from perfect. I think the 286 worked fine, but that might just be because I've forgotten the problems.. I have to say that my current compo has been surprisingly solid once I bought a new PSU. Although after I bought Razer mouse I've had some issues, like the mouse dies sometimes and the DVD player has simply disappeared a couple of times (I have had to reboot to fix that). But for instance when I upgraded my graphics card three years (or was it two?) ago and originally opted for a 6600GT it didn't work with my mobo. I spent the better part of two days trying to make it work before I went back to the shop and got a Radeon 9800Pro.

Now my MSI Neo-F + 7600GT has actually been quite stable.

Okay, here's the skinny kids and kidlets:

PC Gaming and Console gaming rule two entirely different genres. Wii *MAY* open it up a little, but not a whole lot. Basically, you're looking at games that evolved on the PC and games that evolved on the console. A few have crossed platforms and done better (the whole reason I own a PS2 is STRICTLY for Tony Hawk's games and the Rockstar games they won't release on PC, damn them).

But when you get right down to it, it breaks down like this:

FPS, RTS, Multiplayer games are going to generally do better on PC. Halo 1 for PC STILL sells for $20. STILL. That should be a game that's off the shelves. And yet... Basically, as long as Half-Life and Halo are still released on PC, we're going to play them on PC because you can AIM with a damn mouse. I started off in console gaming, and it wasn't until I got a mouse in my hand that I started actually owning people in FPSes. RTS also have a lot of menu requirements and really badly need the mouse to properly navigate.

RPGs, Platformers and any really involved game that doesn't require a shitload of menus but DO require a shitload of time are going to do better on a platform that lets you sit on your fat ass on the couch.

Anyhow. Both systems have their place. Both have their ups, their downs. If you want to get the full spectrum of gaming... ... ... do both.

Amen to that.

No-one was saying consoles are magically bug free, just that console developers are working with fixed hardware and don't have to debug their code on dozens of different GPUs and operating systems. Also they can't say "it's three weeks until release and the game is still a buggy mess, so let's hack this thing together and release a patch later," because they have to get it right the first time. Console games as a rule have few to no bugs, but when I play a PC game I expect bugs.

With that said, the upgradable nature of PCs is actually a point in the system's favor (if you're technically inclined, that is). If you've got a hopelessly outdated console your only option is to buy a new one. But for a hopelessly outdated PC you can buy a few select parts and have a top of the line gaming machine, at a far cheaper price.

I think the way you play a PC game makes a big difference... as in sitting 2 feet from the monitor as opposed to 10 feet away from the tv.

I find it amazing that no-one has mentioned the real factor in why computer gaming has always been so big: easy access to free software.

Probably because that is not why PC gaming has always been so big.

Are you saying that piracy is not part of the deal?

I'm saying that it's not the "real factor".

Are we talking piracy or free software? They aren't necessarily the same thing. :)

In any case, yes, piracy happens. But that really isn't why PC gaming is so popular. It's the sheer number of games available that make it so popular for most people. Especially the very large numbers of free (not pirated) games that are available, the demos and trials for those who just want to test something out, the mods and conversions that help to keep an old game going strong years after it should be dead, etc.

Not in Asia its not.

Pirated console games sell 10 times more (if not more) than pirated computer games. Since not every kid has the brains to activate a PC, all kids know how to press the red light on a PS 2.

That is exactly my point. In the third world, console games are so cheap that you can afford to buy the games without going bankrupt. So no need for a computer.

In the first world, there are no pirated console games, so people use computers instead.

"In the first world, there are no pirated console games, so people use computers instead."

You obviously don't frequent Chinese malls in Toronto ;)

And yet, in China, where the situation is the same as in Indonesia (you only can get pirated console games, while you can buy original PC games if you want), people play more PC than consoles. Looks like piracy is not a factor after all.

Nah. The Chinese are genetically supposed to be smarter.

I consider myself a PC gamer, and I like it better than console gaming, but I have to say that it isn't true. If your PC is hopelessly outdated, you'll probably have to change your processor, motherboard and commonly the memory too (not to mention the VGA). And that is almost (if not more than) half the cost of a PC. I love the fact that PCs can be upgraded, but at the current hardware's development pace, it is far from "extra cheap": it is at least as expensive as 2/3 of a console's price.

You are right about "hopelessly outdated". However, if you really are a gamer, you should be keeping things at least somewhat up to date. I can spend $100-300 every couple of years and keep my computer running the majority of games at full graphics and full speed. Granted, I will need to spend more at the next upgrade because I'll want to switch to PCI-e graphics and that will require and new mobo and so I'll probably do the CPU and perhaps I'll consider going to SATA hard drives as well for speed. But those major upgrades aren't frequent by any means. I haven't spent more than $300 in a year for the past decade or so (and I don't spend that every year) and I've always been able to play the current games up until shortly before I upgrade.

And for the most part... developers are getting it right. Like you say, they basically have one shot to make everything work, and if they don't... it's an expensive process to replace and recall all that media. However, the database is already full of console games that are buggy in different ways, some to the point of unplayablity. On a PC, this might be able to be fixed through patching. On the console, they're definitely dead. Slave Zero on Dreamcast and Vagrant Story on Playstation are examples of games that didn't get it right... besides the ones I already mentioned in my post. Sp what's a gamer to do? Just lament the money thrown down the drain I guess.

Of course that's not to say that PC games are perfect. The original Outpost for instance had all the data files on the read-only CD... and because of that there was no method to patch the most serious game-stopping problems. Other games have fallen into that trap too, which is why the majority of modern games are filling up hard drives so much.


That only lasts to a certain point... eventually (say around 5 years... roughly the lifespan of a good console if you will) a PCs "core", which I always consider to be the motherboard, also becomes outdated... and then you end up replacing that too. Or replace the entire computer if you haven't keept up. The mistake a lot of people who talk about PCs make, is they think "I can just upgrade this..." when in fact if one looks at the history of upgrades, you'll realize they've built themselves an entirely new computer once or twice (replacing "everything" important) and could probably own multiple systems if they put the old hardware together again :)

Maybe, but remember that the Wii is a Nintendo machine, aka no fun for grownups.

I'm a grown-up, and I enjoy playing tennis a lot more than pretending that I'm some alien soldier or splatter ninja in so-called "grown-up" games.

fine by me, i've had enough of pong.

What you say is true, but circumstances vary. Maybe you can swing a deal with someone on eBay and get your parts for a cheaper-than-retail price. Maybe you can sell your old hardware to someone else. It also depends on what kind of games you play. If you want a computer to be bleeding edge, it would obviously cost more than if you just want to play recent releases in relative comfort (some genres also emphasise different hardware. For example: graphics cards and 3D accelerators have largely been driven by first-person shooters, while other genres aren't so graphically intensive. I'm still playing Cossacks 2 on a GeForce4 MX 440, but you need 512MB of RAM.)

...Blah blah, whatever. The point is, you have choice when building a gaming PC. You don't get that when you buy a console.

I would definitely choose PC for RPG games any day. Most good RPG games have a lot of control over yourself and your NPC allies and trying to control all of that quickly using a gamepad is really rather stupid. It'd rather mouse/keyboard for that any day. I like being able to map 10 or 20 or 30 spells and skills to keys and having instant access to them on a keyboard rather than pressing tons of buttons trying to get to the ones I need when I need them.

As far as being comfortable... GET A GOOD CHAIR! Heh. I have a *very* comfortable chair that I'd rather sit on than any couch I've ever used and I got it for all of $70 from Staples (on sale). I can sit up straight and play or I can lean back in it and put my feet up on the desk next to the monitor and play that way. It's all comfortable and I can sit for 10+ hours straight without cramps or and feeling of being uncomfortable.

NOTE TO SELF: get a better chair...

If you're "horizontally challenged" (to use the politically correct term) you NEED a good chair.

Horizontally challenged? You mean short penis?

Mike! Please! Ladies might be reading this thread! :)~

I'm sure they'd wanna know?... oh well :)

ROFL!

I'm not. I'm around 5'9" and 150lbs.

Christ, I gotta stop justifying with the "muscle weighs more than fat" BS.