HHave we passed the golden age of PC gaming?

[Martimus]

Not only is there no resolution in an MMO, but there is no meaningful decisions, no actual impact on the gaming world, no progression of any kind. You play some nameless generic adventurer who is one of tens of thousands and no more special or original than any of the rest. Where in single player you play the "Hero" of the story, in an MMO, you play mediocrity personified.

While I don't advocate going to play it or any MMO, it is patently untrue that actions don't affect the gaming world, or any progression in Eve. Everything in that game is driven by player actions, which can be both a negative as well as a positive. Nothing is carefully regulated because of it, and you can manipulate nearly anything in the game, which I will list as both the biggest positive and negative about the game. It is too close to real life in that respect and can get to be like a job.

 

[thespyder]

It's a subjective label. What it means is relative to each person's own experiences. To someone who's played a lot of great console games and never played a good PC game they could argue that it sounds like a good thing.

No, it isn’t subjective at all. It is totally quantifiable. 100%. PC CPUs are now up to 6 cores and multi-threaded. GPUs are ten times as robust. Hard Drives are Terabytes worth of space. Memory capabilities have broken the 2 gigabyte cap. Modding of PC games is main stream and common place. Internet access is more prevalent and therefore more impactful on the game. Input devices such as KB&M allow for significantly more variety than controllers. All of these are quantifiably superior to a console. And any game that you can play on a Console is capable of being re-worked to run on a PC.

With higher CPU capabilities, more baddies can be on screen at one time, and more tactical calculations can occur simultaneously, areas can be bigger, more rules can be handled, more random events can be accounted for and overall a more complex and fulfilling game can be had. With better GPU, Graphics can be crisper, areas can be visibly larger, things like clipping can be resolved or mitigated, etc... With bigger hard drives, larger games can be compressed onto multiple CDs/DVD and then expanded onto a hard drive, hence bigger and more expansive games can exist. Also with the inclusion of a hard drive resident system, read/write functions are much faster I/O than reading a spinning CD/DVD. So fewer load times, even more calculations that don’t slow down game play, more and greater changes to the game world can be maintained etc… And the memory cap removal allows for lots more to happen at the same time while not impacting visuals or other mechanics. And input devices allow for significantly finer targeting, allow for more buttons and functions readily accessable to the player and even the ability to add a controller to a PC allows for flexability where the same does not exist on the flip side.

It should be relatively apparent even to the meanest intelligence that not only are you seeing a drop in graphics capabilities, but also in complexity of the game, and quantifiably so.

And where a game is "Consolized" in the negative sense is where games that should have had a greater degree of complexity, didn't because it was "Consolized" to fit into a much lesser robust medium (the consoles).

Hell, there's even a lot of console exclusive games that are plain amazing games. That shouldn't be possible since a console exclusive should logically be the most consolized, right?

NO. Wrong. No one is saying that, Except possibly you. However, even games specifically made for consoles are significantly better in PC world (graphically and run smoother and can be modded, etc&#8230, yet still do not stretch a PC’s abilities significantly. And any Console specific game has to, by virtue of the hardware limitations listed above, be of a more simple order. Simple doesn’t always mean bad (I can’t say how many hours I have wasted playing Bejeweled).

It is eminently possible to have ‘Good’ even amazing games on a console. I personally think that God of War is phenomenal, and Dark Souls, and the Metroid Prime series, just to name a few. It is manifestly possible to have a good or even greate game on a console. However, I would not compare these games favorably on complexity level with games like Morrowind or DA:O or even Baldur’s Gate.

I'm of the opinion that what people term as "consolization" is merely a result of, and to an extent a contributing factor to, growth in the video game market. I think most of the complaints about it actually have very little to do with consoles themselves and are rather much more directly related to the explosion in gaming's demographic diversity. As the market expands, the "hardcore gamer" (lol) crowd is marginalized, meaning that the games they want represent a smaller slice of the market and the features they desire have less appeal.

I understand that is your opinion. Consolization is a very real situation where the capabilities of a game are limited due to the constraints of requiring it to fit into a console and/or limited to meet the more general market interests of the console demographic (i.e. dumbing down to the lowest common denominator). Although there are some components associated with the larger market, the hardware component is very real indeed.

Magically remove consoles from the equation and I think you're at a different point in the cycle, but the same cycle nonetheless. Except then the label is "phonization" or "tabletization" or "facebookization" or "handheldization" or "casualization" or whatever kind of shift the market would have underwent to compensate.

You are making up different words for the same effect, yet refuse to acknowledge that there is an issue there. Changing the name, or finding issue with it, doesn’t make the problem magically disappear. If you don’t want to call it consolization, call it Bob. Bob exists regardless of if you like it or not.

Still it does nothing to address what the other post was getting at. Supposedly too many of those games (almost all of them good ones) were 'compromised'. Even if that's the case, does that mean they're still not good or even great games? Does that mean the forward-thinking features of those games aren't valuable and progressive? I don't see why it would. The worst you could say is that they aren't reaching their 'full potential' I guess, but a game can't be in development forever either.

It only doesn’t address the issue because you refuse to acknowledge that not only is there an impact from a hardware perspective, but also from a content perspective. Until you actually realize that fact, you will never understand the arguments.

And again, a game can be good or even great on a console. However, if what makes the game great is curtailed because the game had to be made to fit inside a console, then the game could be a good deal better than it's Consolized version. this is where DA2 failed in spades. And this is where people who know what capabilities a game can and should have, but doesn't because it is getting shoehorned into a console, get really upset.

 

[coloumb]

This is when the golden age of pc gaming existed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLpP2uh-zmE

Pinball Construction Set!

 

[MustangSVT]

not really, gaming is still fun for kids. its just that People got old.

 

[silvan4now]

it's just the fact that we grow up and don't have enough time to fully enjoy it! that's all

 

[JEDI]

I'm not referring to graphics and other technological improvements, but just pure imagination and storytelling. Yes, there are good games out there, but it seems that many of them are cookie cutter plots and not many new concepts. Max Payne 1 and 2 were unique with the film noir overtones and interesting story line. Max Payne 3 seems to be just another FSP with no character and a so called "modern" twist. It seems that developers have become more interested in the bottom line and appealing to the lowest common denominator when it comes to gaming. (Not that I object to making money and selling product, but have we lost the essence of what PC gaming used to be?) I get the impression that some of you feel as I do...look at the excitement when some of you were eager to download the FAN made "Wing Commander" game.
I remember when PC gaming encouraged innovation and when new talent could try their hand at creating games and selling them; small enterprises that were not bought up by mega corporations like Microsoft.
I remember Myst, Thief series, Kings Quest, Deus Ex, Sanatorium, Clive Barkers Undying, Draken, Wheel of Time, Longest Journey, Siberia, NOLF, Unreal, System Shock, Wing Commander Prophecy, and many more, some money makers, some not.
Not to say there aren't any good games out there. Loved Painkiller, Halo 1(made for PC), STALKER series, Far Cry (which never got resolved in the end nor was a true sequal ever made), Crysis, and some new remakes, such as Deus Ex. Played ME 2 and bought Witcher.
I guess in the end, the once new shiny penny has become old and somewhat dated; conglomerates have taken over and innovation and imagination takes second place. The only bright spot seems to be coming out of Eastern Europe these days.Too bad in a way, because I remember when...
You may agree or disagree, but that's just the way I feel.

Wife of Runz

yes the golden age of PC gaming has passed.

i remember years ago i spent hrs and hrs playing Civ, Castle Wolfenstein/doom/quake/Serious Sam, Age of Empries 2, and Diablo II.

now, the last time i upgraded my PC was 2009.
but i will upgrade by may 15th for Diablo III. hopefully the i5-2500K will drop in price by May 1st.

oh.. when did Max Payne III come out?!

 

[thespyder]

Kind of the real reason is that when games were 'new things' the story line could have been cookie cutter and we would have just happily ignored it. Games as a whole were NEW with shiny new graphics and the whole market was just excitement over the next latest thing. Today, games are so prevelant that we scrutinize every aspect because we have so many to choose from.

Also, as costs go up in creating games (and movies etc...), there is a greater pressure to get that all mighty ROI (Return on Investment). Risky strategies and 'Unique' story lines run the risk of falling flat. Then the company is out all of that production cost with no hope of recouping.

Take a look at Planescape: Torment. Widely considered one of the best RPG games to date. But it was VERY different from the normal. And it suffered horrendeously upon launch. people either loved it or HATED it. And quite a lot of hate reigned down on launch. Although it is lauded today, at launch it was considered a failure.

Not that this in any way excuses poor writing or dull, drab stories. Just saying that some of it is understandable if not excusable.

 

[dud]

I'm not referring to graphics and other technological improvements, but just pure imagination and storytelling. Yes, there are good games out there, but it seems that many of them are cookie cutter plots and not many new concepts. Max Payne 1 and 2 were unique with the film noir overtones and interesting story line. Max Payne 3 seems to be just another FSP with no character and a so called "modern" twist. It seems that developers have become more interested in the bottom line and appealing to the lowest common denominator when it comes to gaming. (Not that I object to making money and selling product, but have we lost the essence of what PC gaming used to be?) I get the impression that some of you feel as I do...look at the excitement when some of you were eager to download the FAN made "Wing Commander" game.
I remember when PC gaming encouraged innovation and when new talent could try their hand at creating games and selling them; small enterprises that were not bought up by mega corporations like Microsoft.
I remember Myst, Thief series, Kings Quest, Deus Ex, Sanatorium, Clive Barkers Undying, Draken, Wheel of Time, Longest Journey, Siberia, NOLF, Unreal, System Shock, Wing Commander Prophecy, and many more, some money makers, some not.
Not to say there aren't any good games out there. Loved Painkiller, Halo 1(made for PC), STALKER series, Far Cry (which never got resolved in the end nor was a true sequal ever made), Crysis, and some new remakes, such as Deus Ex. Played ME 2 and bought Witcher.
I guess in the end, the once new shiny penny has become old and somewhat dated; conglomerates have taken over and innovation and imagination takes second place. The only bright spot seems to be coming out of Eastern Europe these days.Too bad in a way, because I remember when...
You may agree or disagree, but that's just the way I feel.

Wife of Runz

I believe that perspective plays an important role in answering this question. For me, the "golden" age of gaming was in the early 2000's. Games of the 90's were mostly basic and rudimentary. But around 2000 things seemed to change. Graphics cards broke a barrier and a series of great RTS games were released (That is my fav genre).

 

[Childs]

Golden age was from Quake 1 to COD4, roughly 10 years. True 3D, internet MP, scripted sequences, cinematic story telling... COD4 ushered in the dark ages.

 

[thejunglegod]

Its still a golden age for kids though. Maybe the title should've read "We're getting too old for this"

Jokes aside, as i said earlier, its the novelty factor that ties us to those special games. For example, i asked my cousin who is "supposedly" a gamer to try out Diablo 2. He tried it for 5 mins and 'Alt+F4'd. Simple reason, he said, "the graphics look horrible and it doesnt feel polished". I was about to slap him when i realised, meh, maybe he feels that way cos h'es been playing games that are all slick and shiny and Diablo 2 feels like crap to him. And to think i was actually going to ask him to try Starcraft. What a Facepalm that would've generated.

Its probably also the reason why my dad thinks that Sean Connery is a legend and that Brad Pitt is a jackass. Even though i agree, it has definitely something to do with the novelty factor.

 

[Cerb]

Also, fixed resolution is just bad, today, now that CRTs are dead. D2 looks terrible, if you want to use Bnet (there is a res patch for non-Bnet play). IMO, LCDs were the real driving force behind SC2, which is pretty much SC made compatible with today's screens.