...I think PC will be doomed....

It just hit me...since these next-gen consoles get higher bits (better visuals), plus the technology to incorporate them with online feature, I wonder if the PC can still manage its own ground. Generally, only RTS, FPS and MMORPG genres are its strongest titles. Unlike console platforms which has more genres, thus giving more alternatives for people. And if people are having trouble with contol pads, these consoles are coming up with keyboard and mouse peripherals from its manufacturer and sometimes from other parties. Damn, I see a dark cloud hovering over the PC....

The PC is not in danger.

PC gaming is also, not in danger.

At least not for the next 20 years.

They have been saying that since the NES came out, back when consoles actually had higher res games than PCs. As long as the PC is around, games will be made for it, thus the market is secure.

Every time that the next generation of consoles come out, PC gaming is invitably doomed, or so lots of stupid people seem to think... its an absurd idea, as anyone should be able to see... like always, within a couple of years the PC will be well past anything that the newest console can do... and with the fact that PC monitors can display high resolutions, unlike all but the most expensive TVs, they have a inherent graphical advantage as well. No, anyone who thinks PC games are doomed just isn't thinking clearly or doesn't really see why PC games are popular... I just don't see why consoles always are going to doom the PC. It makes no sense... each one has its place and doesn't threaten the destruction of the other... like the Game Boy vs the major consoles...

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
and with the fact that PC monitors can display high resolutions, unlike all but the most expensive TVs, they have a inherent graphical advantage as well.

Which is one of the reasons why I brought up the "not for the next 20 years" point. Once HDTV's become much more mainstream, and consoles become more PC like in their execution, there could be some clashes.

True. But PCs will never be fully replaced... consoles are static and not upgradable... and serve no purpose other than gaming... both things consoles don't do. I doubt that one will kill the other... consoles are cheap and easy to use (no hardware problems, system requirements, etc. to deal with...), and PCs are complex but do a lot more and are more powerful... I don't see that relationship changing anytime soon...

They're more powerful, but PC games never push the video cards that are popular at the time because developers have to make games for millions of different configurations. But PC gaming will always be around, if for no other reason than to give amateur developers a chance to make their own games.

They will always be around because game companies will always see this platform there they can make games for. If up to this point, there were never any PC games (let's say they all got shoved out of space/time somehow), BUT the PC was still around, it would take 2 seconds for about 20 PC game developers to announce they are making games for the PC. The PC won't die because of the real world applications it's used for. The PC game won't die because PCs will always be powerful enough to play games. The fact is, PC games not only won't die, they CAN'T die.

Nuh-uh! What would happen if the polar ice caps melted and the entire earth was covered in water, ala Waterworld! And then people drank their pee and had to follow a really lame script and... and I'm tired.

Consoles aren't upgradeable, but they were created to be in a specifc stable conditon for a period of time depending it's next predecessor. I don't see anything wrong with the fact that they can't be updated through installation. Every damn day, comp. manufacturers comes up with ways to tweak their products and thus releasing these updates and patches everyday or every month, sometimes they come in shareware. And then by another month, someone has just released a 5gHz new one, then later a week someone's got 6gHz.... Anyhow, my main emphasis was on targeting game categories, I was just simply implying that concoles offer more for people than what PCs can.

PCs move along with technology just like consoles do, but instead of just getting an improved console every few years, it can be every few months you can find a new toy for your computer. A really souped up computer could probably handle games for a next-gen console. But as ABF pointed out, consoles are gaming machines and nothing more, whereas PCS have plenty of other (less important :D) uses other than gaming.

The PC is not going anywhere, unless consoles become upgradable and can perform other functions (could you imagine a GameCube being the center of a nuclear operation? An X-Box could be the launching pad).

But, a upgradable console that does other functions would essentially be a PC... because the thing that makes consoles different is their gaming focus and the fact that they don't have upgradable parts, except for specific add-ons that go in ports on the outside of the system...

Anyway, PCs have all the genres on them. Sure, some genres are less popular, but they are all there...

Originally posted by OB1
Nuh-uh! What would happen if the polar ice caps melted and the entire earth was covered in water, ala Waterworld! And then people drank their pee and had to follow a really lame script and... and I'm tired.
Don't worry OB1, someone would make a water powered PC

When a console is first released, it's probably much better than the average PC, but by the time it reaches the end of it's lifespan, it's been surpassed by the PC. This cycle has been going on since the NES days and I forsee it happening for a long time to come.

PC gamers rejoice, you have nothing to fear.

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
But, a upgradable console that does other functions would essentially be a PC... because the thing that makes consoles different is their gaming focus and the fact that they don't have upgradable parts, except for specific add-ons that go in ports on the outside of the system...

Anyway, PCs have all the genres on them. Sure, some genres are less popular, but they are all there...

That's not true. There are several console genres that aren't done well (or as well) on the PC. Fighting games, sports games (including games like Tony Hawk), platformers, side-scrollers, action-adventures, console-style RPGs....

Fighting games... well, yeah, PC has been weak in those for years... there are some, but most are very old -- Street Fighter Alpha 1 and 2, Virtua Fighter 1... there aren't any recent ones I know of... well, except for the upcoming One Must Fall 2.

As for extreme sports, yeah, its not done as well... but the first 3 Tony Hawk games have PC ports... the rest of the sports genre is fully represented by EA Sports, mostly... though some others, like High Heat Baseball, also come out for PC... its kind of annoying that Midway and Acclaim don't bring their sports games to PC, but they never have, so its not surprising... but EA does and always has, and plenty of other PC sports games exist, so I don't see how the genre is so weak... and the PC has the sports management/stat game type -- something consoles don't have at all... not surprising, given how sports games like that have no action or actual sports you play in them...

Platformers? Yeah, consoles have almost all of those... PC ports like Rayman 2 and 3 are the exception, not the rule. Sidescrollers, though... those don't exist on the major consoles either... well, barely...

Oh, and who needs console-style RPGs when PC RPGs are both better and very strong... the genre is the PCs 3rd strongest one, after strategy and FPS... there are a few console-style RPG on PC though -- Anachronox, Septerra Core, Final Fantasy 7 and 8 (and 11, upcoming)...

Oh... and if you add the PC shareware/freeware market (because anyone can make PC games if they know how...), PC fills some of those genres, like sidescrolling platformers..

Oh, and who needs console-style RPGs when PC RPGs are both better and very strong... the genre is the PCs 3rd strongest one, after strategy and FPS... there are a few console-style RPG on PC though -- Anachronox, Septerra Core, Final Fantasy 7 and 8 (and 11, upcoming)...


Hey Weltall! Just wanted to let you know that you're nuts for wanting Xenosaga! Get Baldur's Gate instead!

:D

But that isn't exactly what I said, as I'm sure you know...

Pc gaming is not only surviving but prospering.
The sims has sold just as much As GTA3, Warcraft III has sold conciderably well too.I havent touched my console in months but I play on the pc everyday. The pc is so limitless its the best for moding , and online play.mouse and keyboard still cant be beat.
Pc owns the strategy and FPS genre , pc RPGs are arguably better then console ones.

My money would go to say that eventually there won't be a difference between PCs and consoles... that is, to say, consoles will become more multifunctional, like the XBox.

Originally posted by alien space marine
Pc gaming is not only surviving but prospering.
The sims has sold just as much As GTA3

Correction, The Sims has sold better than anything, it's already been crown the best-selling video game ever.

The Sims as in the first Sims game, or the entire Sims franchise, including all ten million expansions?

Well since for anyone to get an expansion they need the first one to expand upon, I'd say just the first alone would certainly still be selling strong enough to be running for best sales evaaar.

The Sims, including the game and the 5 expansion packs (not the Sims Online though... or the upcoming 6th expansion, of course... :) ), is the best selling PC game ever... once it got past Myst. I don't remember the exact number, though... I also don't know if its the best selling electronic game ever or if some console game has sold better than that.

Oh, and yes, PC gaming is doing very well despite all the gloom and doom predictions of the last few years. And it will continue to do so.

I dont know the exact figure , but if the expansions sell well that means alot of people own the orginal game.
you could also concider vice city a expansion though it is a game in itself , its not really a sequeil either.

No you couldn't because there is one major difference. You don't need any previous Grand Theft games for Vice City to work. That's why they are expansions. They expand upon an existing game, and require that you install that previous game before they can work.

The first pseudo console expansion was Sonic & Knuckles, but it's expansion of Sonic 3 was only optional. You could choose to play it alone.

The first TRUE console expansion is going to be Final Fantasy XI: Vision of Ziraat for PS2, which unless I'm mistaken, WILL require owning FFXI to work.

I thought that GTA had an expansion on the PSX that required the original game...

Vice City is not a prequel or a sequel to GTA 3. It's a whole new game set in the GTA universe.

So it's a sequal :D.

Is Clone Wars a sequel to Rogue Leader? No, it's just another game in the SW universe.

Vice City isn't a prequel or a sequel to GTA 3 since it doesn't have any of the main characters (except for some young criminals who are in GTA3) and the storylines are completely independent from each other. But whatever, I guess you could call it a prequel.

Sure in a manner of speaking all the Star Wars games are sequals to each other, and that's the manner I was joshin' about. Would you be more comfortable with the term spinoff then?

Well it's not exactly a spin-off either...

Its a sequel... but a limited one. If it was PC-only they might have called it a 'stand-alone expansion pack'... those happen every so often -- expansions that don't require the original game to run...

It's nothing like an expansion pack. It uses the GTA 3 engine, but it's an even bigger game.

I'd say its either a major expansion pack, or a very limited upgrade sequel... because its not enough of a change to be a true sequel, and does have more in it than the typical expansion... semi-seqel? Demi-sequel? I don't know... how about just 'another game in the same series'?

That's actually what he called it in the first place, then I joked about how it's basically a sequal then, and then he got all defensive like he's some kind of Star Trek fan. Oh right, he is.

I'm more of a Star Wars fan, actually.

Vice City isn't different enough to be considered a sequel? Well then every Resident Evil game after the first one are just expansions, as is every Tomb Raider sequel, every Sonic sequel, every Mario Party sequel, etc.

Oh right, Star WARS. Eh, easy mistake, sorry there.

Completely new game
Completely new weapons
Completely new features
Completely new storyline
Completely new city
Completely new cars
Completely new DECADE

Shares some similar play mechanics to it's predecessor

I don't see how it doesn't qualify as a sequal/prequal. Just because the driving of the cars is basically the same as the previous one (although motorcycles and airborn vehicles have also been added).

Although, all of these things can be covered by an expansion pack.

Oh and Rayman 3 could also be considered an expansion pack by your definition of the term, ABF.

Not its not... it changes a lot...

I know that a lot of sequels barely change the game... I just wish that more did. I wish sequels were all like Blizzard's seqels -- drastic improvements, not minor changes... oh well.

Come on, reviews for Rayman 3 have already come in. They say that it's basically the same game as before but with more annoying voices and some tedious mini-games, and that it definitely doesn't stand up to recent platformers like Mario Sunshine and Sly Cooper. There are more changes in Vice City from GTA 3 than there are in Rayman 3 from Rayman 2.

I liked Rayman 2 almost as much as Mario 64, in its completely different way... and Rayman 3 looks like its similar, but improved (based on playing the demo...). Like most sequels.

I thought that Rayman 2 was alright. It was a pretty decent platformer.