I'm sorry, but anyone who says PC gaming is "dying" clearly known **** all about PC gaming. Every platform has ebbs and flows, and the difference with PC gaming now vs 8 years ago is that the volume of developers is lessening... we do not live in the same world (games-wise) that we lived in back then when tech was lower and it was much easier to program games at lower cost and reduced pressure.
There have been some awesome titles in the last two years, and some uber titles are making their way here every year... Starcraft II, Diablo 3, Dragon Age... I mean wtf how can it be dying?
Stupid question, and every time I see it posted by some numpty who has probably been out of touch of PC gaming for 5 years, or has converted to consolism and simply doesn't know any better, a little part of me dies.
Back in the good old days you could buy a top class game every month, and it was never an easy decision either. I miss those days.
I'm still playing TIE Fighter
Then +1 kudos to you for still appreciating probably the best game ever made.
Try Freespace 2 if you haven't yet, it's like playing space-sim porn.![]()
With a game so old my conscience would be clean if I were to... acquire it by 'other' means. £35 for a 10 year old game, no matter how brilliant, is an insult.
Anyway, it's £17 on Ebay.![]()
You appear to have completely missed my point. Put it like this, what good would a racing game be that is totally devoid of any feeling?
Yes, you could argue that any 3d game is basically a camera floating around in a game world, my point was that Killzone actually feels like you are 'connected' to the game world, and COD feels floaty and disconnected in comparison.
There's a SW variant based on FS Open called "Imperial Alliance" but it isn't finished yet![]()
Check out those Star Trek screens too http://scp.indiegames.us/screenshots.php![]()
I think both of you are arguing over very little, quite simply the two games are different styles, KZ2 I think suits consoles, but COD4 feels like a tradition quick-paced FPS.
To use racing games as an example, GTR2 is a sim (although not sluggish, in fact I find it lively, but it's heavy) GRID instead seems light and funs and 'floaty'. Yet, people dont argue GRID is better than GTR2, becuase they are different genres (well, maybe sub genres because they are both racing, but hey!)
PC gaming isn't dead. I'm still playing TIE Fighter, so that says a lot for the longevity of older games on the platform, even if recent releases are rubbish.
Doesn't that back up the OP's argument? Currently on the PC I'm playing WoW, Baldur's Gate 2 and a bit of Warcraft 3. All of those games are over 4 years old - again, there just isn't that much out atm. We're forced to rely on the classics as the current lineup is so uninspiring.
I do have a point. Those figures are all based on publicy released numbers by the publishers. Your only deluding yourself if you think thats healthy and will continue to increase the viability of PC releases. The accountants who fund these multi million £ projects only look at facts and the facts are PC games are not as strong as they should be.you could have a point if you hadnt pulled those numbers out of you a$$.
The standards have dropped across the board as the console crowed on avg are more casual & less fussy then the PC crowed & now they cater game at the console level.