"Who Killed PC Gaming?"

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't think the current generation of consoles can do DX11
- DX10 was terrible unpopular with devs because of the "Vista only" requirement
- so soon the PC will have much superior graphics [on the non ports] at higher resolutions and with faster FPS with Win7/Vista

then you will see it swing back to the PC

... until the next gen of consoles

They can't even do DX10.

 

[AlgaeEater]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: shortylickens
It will never die completely, but for those of us who like serious Single-player games or LAN-only stuff, we are in trouble.

Prototype is single player, COD 4 is single player, Fallout 3 is single player, Arma 2, and the list goes on.

Those are all console ports, or practically console ports, and in many ways they all suck ass.

Deus Ex 3 and Starcraft 2 are the big white hope right now.

Although I don't agree on the notion that those games were bad; I do agree that those games listed are poor examples since most of them are multi-platform games with the PC taking least priority to develop on for each with the exception of Arma 2 which I believe is PC only.


I wouldn't hype up Deus Ex 3 and Starcraft 2 so much. You're only going to set yourself up for disappointment like the majority of games for the PC as of late. I'm trying not to hype up the new mentioned Mechwarrior game myself.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't think the current generation of consoles can do DX11
- DX10 was terrible unpopular with devs because of the "Vista only" requirement
- so soon the PC will have much superior graphics [on the non ports] at higher resolutions and with faster FPS with Win7/Vista

then you will see it swing back to the PC

... until the next gen of consoles

They can't even do DX10.

you missed the point

MS tied DX10 to the unpopular OS, Vista
- if Win7 is popular, then DX11 will be also

 

[BenSkywalker]

Looking back over the longer term of the last 20 to 30 years, dominance has shifted back and forth several times between computers and consoles, hasn't it?

From a market perspective, no. For many years Myst was the best selling PC game of all time amassing 6 million copies sold. The N64 which was largely considered a failure console from that era had half a dozen titles clear 10 million units. PC gaming in terms of the size of the market hasn't ever been close to the consoles, and that gap has been steadily increasing for many years now. In years past the potential ROI for a hit game on the PC was large enough that it was still a very attractive platform for developers, the lack of royalties offering a bit of insurance to help protect margins for titles while still offering a reasonable profit ceiling potential. Now that games are around the $20 million mark to develop for a high profile title the sales potential on the PC platform makes it rather risky for publishers to focus on as a solo or even a lead platform. The one genre that PCs have huge potential profit margins is the MMO space, and that is the big reason why we see that space still dominated by PCs at this point in time. With ToR in the pipes, WoW still having a massive installed base and the only console counter being cross platform(FFXIV) that isn't likely to change anytime soon.

When i say it would bring back life into pc gaming, i'm not talking about sales, im talking about the game itself. (with reviews, E sport competitions, more people buying/upgrading their computers, more people coming to the PC)

Starcraft isn't a mass market franchise outside of core RTS PC gaming fans. You aren't going to bring new people to the platform with it, nor will you bring any sort of major excitement from it outside of people who already are fans. Don't get me wrong, SC2 will sell millions and make Blizzard lots of cash, but they are going to make that money on the same people who already play their games. RTSs are not that popular outside of a relatively small market. Said another way, huge hits on the console side easily clear 20 million units sold and fail to bring new people to the platforms regularly, SC2 has very close to no chance to be that big.

wait, since when did north korea play computer games?

Doh Errr, the other North Korea, the one that's spelled South Korea

I remember when the PS2 came out, everyone thought it was a super computer. Half Life got ported to it and you could use a mouse and keyboard. Linux was being sold for it so you could use it as a computer. Everyone thought that was the end of PC gaming.

PC gaming has been in an overall state of decline as a percentage of the market since that time. It doesn't mean it's the end of PC gaming, but we aren't going to see the PC having a ton of exclusives with production levels approaching consoles at any point in the forseeable future.

If you don't like gaming on the PC, play on consoles.

How about stop being a platform bigot and play games, not platforms?

i don't think the current generation of consoles can do DX11
- DX10 was terrible unpopular with devs because of the "Vista only" requirement
- so soon the PC will have much superior graphics [on the non ports] at higher resolutions and with faster FPS with Win7/Vista

then you will see it swing back to the PC

Where is the development money going to come from for these new PC games? Who is going to pay for it? It's nice to talk about what the PC will be capable of from an abstract standpoint, but who is going to be paying ~$25 million in development costs for a PC exclusive so they can use DX11 while reducing their margin potential by more then 60%? It doesn't make any sense from a business perspective. Unlike the console space, noone is going to pay that kind of money to keep a title PC exclusive since noone is collecting royalties on the PC side. You may see some ports start to utilize some features for added visuals on the PC side if the developers push for it(and the publisher is OK with it) but as of right now the only PC genre with the potential ROI to warrant that level of investment is MMOs and they are served best using behind the curve graphics for obvious reasons.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: AlgaeEater

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: shortylickens
It will never die completely, but for those of us who like serious Single-player games or LAN-only stuff, we are in trouble.

Prototype is single player, COD 4 is single player, Fallout 3 is single player, Arma 2, and the list goes on.

Those are all console ports, or practically console ports, and in many ways they all suck ass.

Deus Ex 3 and Starcraft 2 are the big white hope right now.

Although I don't agree on the notion that those games were bad; I do agree that those games listed are poor examples since most of them are multi-platform games with the PC taking least priority to develop on for each with the exception of Arma 2 which I believe is PC only.

I wouldn't hype up Deus Ex 3 and Starcraft 2 so much. You're only going to set yourself up for disappointment like the majority of games for the PC as of late. I'm trying not to hype up the new mentioned Mechwarrior game myself.

I guess you've never read any of my posts in the PC Gaming forum have you?
Trust me, I am NOT hyped up. I have been disgusted with gaming since about 2002. If Deus Ex 3 or Starcraft 2 suck ass, I will not be gaming anymore. They are my last bastion of hope simply because I have nothing else to look forward to. There arent any good Star Wars games anymore. No more 4X games, (unless Stardock has something secret they arent talking about yet) and most RPG's in general are just shooters with stats these days.
I dont care about the new Mech game, even though I love the old ones. Nope, I've been running games on my computer ever since I got Elvira 2 for DOS. I am an old man now and long since lost my enthusiasm for gaming. In fact theres a pretty good chance I wont be impressed by Starcraft 2 even if it doesnt suck.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: skace
It's the gamers who died not the platform.

I'm still alive ,anyway I got a feeling PC gaming will get better down the road since we got some great new games to look forward too and as already stated DX11 with new video hardware will hopefully help as well.


It's not dead by a long chalk .

 

[AlgaeEater]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

I have been disgusted with gaming since about 2002. If Deus Ex 3 or Starcraft 2 suck ass, I will not be gaming anymore. They are my last bastion of hope simply because I have nothing else to look forward to. There arent any good Star Wars games anymore. No more 4X games, (unless Stardock has something secret they arent talking about yet) and most RPG's in general are just shooters with stats these days.
I dont care about the new Mech game, even though I love the old ones. Nope, I've been running games on my computer ever since I got Elvira 2 for DOS.

It's scary since I feel I will turn into you one day haha.

Day by day I become more disillusioned with gaming in general, especially on the PC. But I have some hopes left for me outside of Starcraft 2 and Deus Ex 3, such as Majesty 2 and Disciples III which I hope will be pretty good. I loved both originals.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I wouldnt say that PC gaming is dead, but it is sure being taken over by casual games and MMOs. Very sad situation, since I refuse to play MMOs and am not into casual games either.

Most of the reasons in the article were valid, but I would have to say piracy and Microsoft were two of the biggest. When Vista game out, what was the "blockbuster" vista exclusive title ----Halo 2. WTF a two year old console port, and halo 3 never came to the PC. And games for windows was a disaster. I dont know if Microsoft did it intentionally, but they sure contributed a lot to the problems that PC gaming has now. I don't really think that the expense for PC gaming has to be that excessive unless one insists on high resolutions and high quality. Almost any computer upgraded with a better power supply and 100 dollar graphics card can play PC games if you dont insist on highest quality. Laptops and netbooks are another situation however, and if they continue to replace desktops, it will then be necessary to have a separate comp for gaming.

 

[SlickSnake]

The problems with PC gaming rests mostly with the developers themselves, and they know this. Take Age of Conan as a good example. It was released as an unfinished and unpolished beta that they tried to pass off as completed and ready to go. It wasn't. I played it for a little over a month at launch, and it crashed and burned so often I refused to pay for it for more than one month. Now I decided to try it again on the free retrial offer, and I am now expected to down load almost 3.5 GIGS just to play this game again. Does that sound like a bug free PC game that was ready for release? And how many other PC games are just as buggy and unplayable months or even years after their release for many PC users?

Most casual gamers just want to load up a game and play, and they also want the ability to take the game to a friends house and easily play it on their systems, too. Which is why there is the obvious rise of console gaming. Sure, the console hardware becomes quickly outdated, but the ability to grab a game on the fly and rent it or take it to a friends house to play it makes it worth the money spent for compatibility, speed of loading and ease of use. And none of these are strong points in PC gaming, and they never will be as long as bean counter suits determine when to release a PC game and not the developers.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
.

If you don't like gaming on the PC, play on consoles.

How about stop being a platform bigot and play games, not platforms?

How about you stop being a console fanboy. I really don't care what other people game on, the PC is my platform of choice. In every PC Gaming forum all you do is preach about the doom of pc gaming and how it will ultimately fail and how it isn't worth investing a single penny into the market. Then you bring up how Gran Turismo 4 on the PS2 surpasses Crysis in graphics in every thread. Yeah, you have a lot of credibility.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: AlgaeEater

Originally posted by: shortylickens

I have been disgusted with gaming since about 2002. If Deus Ex 3 or Starcraft 2 suck ass, I will not be gaming anymore. They are my last bastion of hope simply because I have nothing else to look forward to. There arent any good Star Wars games anymore. No more 4X games, (unless Stardock has something secret they arent talking about yet) and most RPG's in general are just shooters with stats these days.
I dont care about the new Mech game, even though I love the old ones. Nope, I've been running games on my computer ever since I got Elvira 2 for DOS.

It's scary since I feel I will turn into you one day haha.

Day by day I become more disillusioned with gaming in general, especially on the PC. But I have some hopes left for me outside of Starcraft 2 and Deus Ex 3, such as Majesty 2 and Disciples III which I hope will be pretty good. I loved both originals.

Disciples 3 has the most potential since its being made by a small group and is not supposed to be a blockbuster. That and the folks who made it can appreciate the awesomeness of a Turn-based strategy game done correctly.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
.

If you don't like gaming on the PC, play on consoles.

How about stop being a platform bigot and play games, not platforms?

How about you stop being a console fanboy. I really don't care what other people game on, the PC is my platform of choice. In every PC Gaming forum all you do is preach about the doom of pc gaming and how it will ultimately fail and how it isn't worth investing a single penny into the market. Then you bring up how Gran Turismo 4 on the PS2 surpasses Crysis in graphics in every thread. Yeah, you have a lot of credibility.

FAIL.

 

[BenSkywalker]

How about you stop being a console fanboy.

My most anticipated game atm by far is PC exclusive, ToR. I haven't made a secret of this in the least bit either.

In every PC Gaming forum all you do is preach about the doom of pc gaming and how it will ultimately fail and how it isn't worth investing a single penny into the market.

Lie about yourself all you want. You want to start spewing lies about me back it up boy. Start linking and quoting or sit back down in the corner where you belong

Then you bring up how Gran Turismo 4 on the PS2 surpasses Crysis in graphics in every thread.

Quote me once ever saying anything like that or realize that you are nothing but a dishonest little troll. You want to lie about yourself have at it all day long. You want to start talking about what I say back it up or let this be an example of what your comments are worth.

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Quote me once ever saying anything like that...

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
So I'm sitting around playing KZ2 and something seems off so I fire up the PC to make sure- yep, KZ2 can go toe to toe with Crysis cranked up, using a 7900GT(being generous- and I mean KZ2 is running on a 7900GT, not Crysis ). There is some give and take on which is better overall(Crysis for water, KZ for particles etc) but the two titles are easily directly comparable to each other, why is anything approaching this possible? Yes, I'm running Vista not some Win3.1 varriation with DX9, cranking everything to Very High on Crysis- no it isn't very playable, yes- KZ2 is

Obviously fixed hardware has a huge advantage an over open platform, but the level of disparity here is simply shocking. Tired and outdated, ram starved and with laughable shader power and in direct competition with the strongest PC visuals to date. On that same line- why is Crysis still sitting on top? Where is Sweeney? Carmack? You guys give up? Not taking anything away from the Crytek guys, but why the hell aren't we seeing better utilization of available resources in current hardware? Why is the upstart sitting on top for years, realisticly unchallenged by anyone? Why hasn't anyone at least offered comparable visuals with better performance? Why aren't we seeing the envelope pushed anymore?

How many vid card generations are we going to sit through still asking the same question- how well can it run Crysis? It's absurd. Again, not trying to take anything away from the Crytek team as they did a hell of a job, but this industry is built around rapid progress, the hardware side hasn't slowed down, why has the software side, in essence, stopped?

I understand the diminishing returns issues quite well, but why not a faster engine with comparable visual quality? Seeing a seriously underpowered system pull of the same visual quality with significantly weaker hardware leaves me scratching my head a bit- where are you PC devs? When are you coming back to show us some new stuff?

Crysis took the throne 15 months ago and we haven't even seen what I would call a viable attempt at removing them, that is simply laughable in this industry. I understand that games aren't just about the visuals, moreso then a lot of people actually, but there are a whole lot of people whose job it is to make the visuals in games as good as they can, where have they all gone? What have they all been doing?

Source: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...281678&highlight_key=y

Now STFU and GTFO out of PC Gaming.

 

[BenSkywalker]

If you actually read the content of that particular post I was pointing out my frustration that PCs hadn't advanced more, in fact I though I made it pretty clear that PCs could easily outdo what we have seen to date.

Also, work on your reading comprehension a bit, he said I stated GT4 on the PS2 looked better then Crysis, I've not said any game on any console looks better then Crysis, I said the best I've seen to date is comparable and lamented that as PCs should be well ahead of them.

Edit

Rereading that thread and it did have one comment I recall making-

A quote from a website-

The graphics in GT5: Prologue are even better than Crysis -- they're stunningly realistic.

My comment to that-

While I don't agree with that assertion, in terms of rendering styles GT5P is actually closer to the way Crysis renders then KZ2. Link,

The post I was replying to claimed I stated that GT4 looked better then Crysis, I have never said anything even remotely approaching that.

 

[reallyscrued]

Reading comprehension? You asked him to point out one instance of you "saying anything like that". That, was something like it.

Stop disguising what you were really saying. Oh dear, frustration? Really? It was a console praise/pc bash post, re-read what you wrote and be subjective this time.


Main point: You are an idiot to say the least. I wish in some way, Sweeny or Carmack actually did come to these forums and read posts like yours and laugh in their heads. Seriously, what the hell do you know about how a game is rendered, or written? KZ really look all that great? Fantastic. Too bad that if a PS3 can render it, then technically so can any computer that's equipped with a 7800 or better.

I guess when it comes down to it, you and I share the same frustration with the PC devs, only I'm not annoying about it. People who are serious about PC gaming like to be the bleeding edge of technology, but console hardware will forever be a snapshot of the year it was produced. PC gaming has the potential, at all times, and always will, to be better than consoles.

So quit it with the Crysis comparison threads and posts. And if you researched a little, you might find that Sweeny is working on his next engine and so is Carmack, but Timothy seems to have fallen for the sirens' calls to come over to consoles. Thank god JC is still on the more mature team.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Reading comprehension? You asked him to point out one instance of you "saying anything like that". That, was something like it.

Huh? Saying the hands down best looking title on the PS3 is comparable to Crysis is akin to saying that a PS2 game looks better? If that is seriously what you are saying then perhaps it isn't an issue of reading comprehension, but one of knowledge of the platforms

Stop disguising what you were really saying. Oh dear, frustration? Really? It was a console praise/pc bash post, re-read what you wrote and be subjective this time.

Reread the whole thread actually, it is exactly what I said it was. I didn't bash the PC at all, I was bashing PC devs who weren't pushing our hardware- repeatedly.

Seriously, what the hell do you know about how a game is rendered, or written?

Probably more then you realize. While I never have dealt with Sweeney, I have with Carmack back when he enabled S3TC for Quake3. There were issues with artifacts on certain hardware that couldn't be dealt with on a broader base because certain hardware only supported certain formats and modifying the executable for everyone would have made the game unplayable for certain people. He explained to us how he was doing it, so we modified some executables and put them up for people to download on the site I was writing for at the time so people with certain types of hardware could eliminate most of the artifact issues while still seeing a large performance boost for 32MB boards(was actually fairly simple, we used a hex editor to replace all the strings in the executable requesting S3TC1 with S3TC3, of course Carmack explaining it made it a lot easier). I also dealt with Daniel Vogel who is currently with Epic, although at that time he was working for Loki games(who handled porting titles to Linux) on getting the high rez textures working under Windows for people who didn't have S3 powered cards running UT99. That was a bit more involved and Vogel handled it all, I just documented it and got some feedback on testing results from various hardware.

People who are serious about PC gaming like to be the bleeding edge of technology

And that is the point of my post you linked. As an enthusiast that is what I want, that is what I see as the PC's biggest strength, but it isn't being utilized at all right now. Crysis is still the pinnacle of PC technology we can display and it has been out for two years. Nothing in the PC space should stand for two years as the undisputed king of the hill, not even monitors or mice. On a business perspective I can clearly see why it is this way, but that doesn't mean it is how I want to see it.

So quit it with the Crysis comparison threads and posts.

I'd love to. As soon as Crysis is toppled I will be able to.

And if you researched a little, you might find that Sweeny is working on his next engine and so is Carmack, but Timothy seems to have fallen for the sirens' calls to come over to consoles. Thank god JC is still on the more mature team.

If I researched a little? id Tech5's lead development platform is the 360. They have already changed the game around reducing it from 5 zones to 2 because of the technical limitations of the system(DVD based, not a large enough format for ideal mega texturing useage). Why is it, btw, that you conisder the PC side to be more mature? Comments like that are assinine to say the least. You think it's more mature to blow up zombies with a mouse and keyboard then a controller? Honestly? What I see as immature is people who claim to be gamers refusing to play games because it comes out on system X. There are some console fanboys to be sure with the same attitude, but they seem to be less common then they are in the PC camp. Play the damn games, not the systems.

 

[pmv]

@BenSkywalker

If I understand your earlier post correctly, you are saying the really crucial thing that has changed the balance between consoles and computers is the way games have gone from being things one guy can code in his bedroom (as in the 8 bit days) to being huge productions with bigger budgets than many movies? Hence a large user-base is essential to support the costs of development? So perhaps a shift to closed, standardised consumer platforms is part of the maturing of the games industry? I'm struggling to think of an analogy with some other industry, to get some indication on where it might go in the long run.

What you say about games vs systems is entirely reasonable, but I have to say I prefer the PC, though I'm not sure why. I guess its because the upgrading and tweaking and wanting the best performance is part of the fun of it, if I'm to be honest. For some reason the very 'closed' and non-tinkering-friendly aspect of consoles is what puts me off them. I don't know what the 'user mod' situation is with consoles now, but that's another side of it, the PC just feels less passive and more interactive than a console. But whatever will be will be, its hard to argue with economics.

 

[BenSkywalker]

If I understand your earlier post correctly, you are saying the really crucial thing that has changed the balance between consoles and computers is the way games have gone from being things one guy can code in his bedroom (as in the 8 bit days) to being huge productions with bigger budgets than many movies? Hence a large user-base is essential to support the costs of development? So perhaps a shift to closed, standardised consumer platforms is part of the maturing of the games industry? I'm struggling to think of an analogy with some other industry, to get some indication on where it might go in the long run.

Yes, that is a good summation. On a realistic basis we are already at the point where the upper limits of visuals are a function of budget as much as technology, the more we move forward the more that will tip towards budget. They could make the consoles so simple to develop for we could even go back to the days of one guy writing the code for a game in his basement in his spare time, the problem is going to be assett development(not that coding games is going to get easier, just pointing out that isn't where the real budget issues are going to be).

I think the best industry to compare games to going forward is going to be movies still. Take a look at the budget for something like a StarWars versus something like Slumdog Millionaire. We are going to see an increasingly large rift between top tier titles and those without huge budgets, and I can see both of those doing fine. Services like Live Arcade, the PSNStore and Steam already offer a great place to pick up some fun titles with significantly lower production value then the sweeping epics we pay full price for. I see those as sort of 'direct to video' offerings to put them in an abstract comparison. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them, just that they aren't going to be huge blockbusters even if some of them deserve it far more then some of the bigger titles. This is a market I can see the PC dominating for many different reasons, how easy it is to develop for being a huge one.

I think on a realistic basis we should start expecting less games in total coming out at the full price retail level. I think publishers are going to increasingly push their games firmly into the AAA realm or back them down into the less expensive/less risky low production games(not saying bad by any means, my favorite game in terms of fun for the 360 is Geometry Wars which is a stupidly simple concept that is an absolute blast to play).

MMOs are off in their own little orbit, a completely different ballgame although the economics of them share similar elements to the broader market. You have your mega blockbusters that are pushing nine figure development costs, such as WoW and ToR, then you have your next step down with solid but more nich titles like WAR, EvE and Conan, and then some of the more obscure titles which mainly seem to come from Korea(Aion comes to mind, although it seems like that may have a shot at bumping up into the next category).

What you say about games vs systems is entirely reasonable, but I have to say I prefer the PC, though I'm not sure why.

For me it depends on the genre entirely. Strategy games are PC by light years over the consoles, only system I will touch for strats outside of the PC is the DS, and that is for scaled down simpler versions only. FPSs PC again, I'll take a mouse and a keyboard. I don't have an issue playing a shooter on the consoles, but it certainly isn't my first choice(well, a high def FPS with Wii style controls would be pretty slick). Racers are consoles all the way, for a ton of reasons- availability of top tier racing games on the PC for years now has unfortunately been zero Action games overwhelmingly console again, big screen, controller, buddies playing with you, just a better experience on the consoles. Fighting games are the same. Adventure type titles it comes down to title availability, rarely are they available on both platforms, and overwhelmingly the ones that are on a given system are best on that particular system(in terms of differing styles). RPGs are much like adventure games, while having huge amounts of flexibility and the ability to mod a game like Oblivion are a huge plus, the sweeping theatrical style storyline of FF lends itself much better to consoles(we are seeing some crossover there).

For some reason the very 'closed' and non-tinkering-friendly aspect of consoles is what puts me off them. I don't know what the 'user mod' situation is with consoles now, but that's another side of it, the PC just feels less passive and more interactive than a console. But whatever will be will be, its hard to argue with economics.

All very well said. I absolutely see the strengths in the PC as a gaming platform, much as I do the others(never dealing with DRM and knowing every game will play flawlessly is nice too ), my biggest thing is enjoying the games. I try to pick them up on whatever platform will give me the best experience for them and enjoy them. When it comes down to it, hardcore gamers are still looked at like we are a bunch of overgrown kids by a large segment of society. Pointing towards one group or another amongst ourselves and saying those are the real kids is just foolish

 

[shortylickens]

Yup, this thread has gone exactly where all similar threads have gone before.
I dont think we covered any new ground here.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

How about you stop being a console fanboy.

My most anticipated game atm by far is PC exclusive, ToR. I haven't made a secret of this in the least bit either.

In every PC Gaming forum all you do is preach about the doom of pc gaming and how it will ultimately fail and how it isn't worth investing a single penny into the market.

Lie about yourself all you want. You want to start spewing lies about me back it up boy. Start linking and quoting or sit back down in the corner where you belong

Then you bring up how Gran Turismo 4 on the PS2 surpasses Crysis in graphics in every thread.

Quote me once ever saying anything like that or realize that you are nothing but a dishonest little troll. You want to lie about yourself have at it all day long. You want to start talking about what I say back it up or let this be an example of what your comments are worth.

It was supposed to have been read as an exaggeration but it isn't too far off of what you would say. BenSkywalker, I'm going to ignore all your posts from now on. It isn't worth arguing back and forth over a forum.

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
It isn't worth arguing back and forth over a forum.

Indeed. Ben, I will do the same as per your posts. BTW, I meant more mature to mean having a richer history, it was not a reflection on the age of its user base.

But lastly, I would like to point out that with user mods it is possible to make Half Life 2 and Crysis look a lot better, probably do a degree that current gen consoles can't touch. Crysis may not look the prettiest to you in comparison to your highly optimized console games but the engine definitely has the most potential.

 

[Skott]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Yup, this thread has gone exactly where all similar threads have gone before.
I dont think we covered any new ground here.

Exactly my thoughts as well. I been hearing these same arguments for many years now. Nothing really new or different.

 

[RESmonkey]

Guys, guys! Let's not argue

 

[imported_Asianman]

Originally posted by: RESmonkey
Guys, guys! Let's not argue

Exactly, why can't we just get along and go back to playing Super Smash Bros on the N64 emulator on our overpowered gaming PCs?