Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
PC gaming is alive and well, end of debate.
Read 'em and weep.
I think I speak for all sane people who have been defending PC gaming from these false and inflammatory arguments all this time when I say:
STFU, console fags.
I think I speak for all sane people who have been defending PC gaming from these false and inflammatory arguments all this time when I say:
STFU, console fags.
Comments
It seems to back up everything we've been saying...
Read NPD numbers. Just about every month the Xbox 360 has a title that breaks 400k sold. That's 400,000 x $60, or 24 million. For one game in an market populated by, well, more than one game. I love me some PC games, but to act is if the market is on anything but WoW-related life support is just being crazy. How many copies of Pokemon are going to sell this MONTH, let alone this year? It's already broken 500k in pre-orders alone. There aren't enough Company of Heroes or Supreme Commanders out there to do more than stop the market from grinding its gears shut all together. $790 million is respectable, $4.8 billion is significantly better.
I don't see where this PC/console animosity comes from. Are you trying to reassure yourself that your investment was worthwhile? I console, I PC, love 'em both.
If anything, I desperately -want- PC gaming to be great again. I have high hopes for Supreme Commander, TF2, et al. But, the fact remains that the market is currently very weak.
So, Kenjura, where are you going with this post? ^_~
I love PC gaming just as much as anyone else, but, it's just not up on par with the console games right now.
Why does the PC have to outsell all consoles combined to get respect? PC's sell $970M, and consoles $4.8B. But how many consoles are there? I'm sure the DS or the Wii may have beaten the PC mark, but you're adding all consoles together to beat PC's! That's like saying "the US sucks cuz they only have a GDP of 12 trillion, but everyone else in the world has like 30. you know...COMBINED."
Rym and Scott, at least, are unqualified to comment on PC games, having been out of the loop for so long their opinions cannot be relevant. With a few exceptions, they've both admittedly not taken part in PC gaming since the "glory days" of the early decade. I yearn for those days too, when Counterstrike wowed the world by having over a *million* active players by measures which put other games in the low hundreds of thousands at best. And yet, there are games which dog those numbers now, including WoW, which people summarily dismiss, because it's convenient to exclude the juggernaut when arbitrarily making false statements.
PC gaming is fine. It's not great. I'm not saying it's outselling all consoles combined, or even outselling the Wii or the DS. Your consoles are not threatened by the PC. Don't worry. But it's fucking fine. $970 million dollars a year? On games costing $50 at most? That's a lot of games. Do the math.
It's fine. It's not dying. It's not taking over the gaming world. It's just fine. It's on the upswing. So STFU.
So the article further subdivides between consoles and handhelds. Which means in a year where two of the next-gen consoles came out with an astounding month and an half of sales, dividing these sales by three shows a respectable 1.6 billion off consoles sales for each company (not factoring in portables). What's more, this is money that directly impacts each company, as Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft get a cut of every game sold for their system whereas Blizzard doesn't see a single cent of the money of a game Firaxis sells, and vice-versa.
Kenjura, you're continuing an argument that nobody's ever started with you. I've never seen a single person say PC gaming is dead/dying on this board, yet in every other thread you persist that it's still alive and well (usually with a triade about how great WoW is).
PC Gaming is FINE! NOTHING is wrong!
Precious is good to Gollum. Precious never hurt Gollum.
You rant about this topic like it somehow affects you or matters. You're so defensive it belies your own position. You go out of your way to fight battles while the trenches in front of you are empty.
If you weren't so defensive, about both PC gaming and in particular WoW, people would take you at least a little more seriously. Dave was right on the money when he called you out for it. You defend WoW in an almost fanatical sense, to the point that it just sounds like you're trying to rationalize your own wasted time playing it so as to not feel stupid for having lost all of those hours instead of accomplishing something with them. You act as though there is somehow a conspiracy to discredit your precious PC gaming, as though the masses somehow have something to gain by spreading what you perceive as lies about your hobby. You act as though anyone cares but you.
Play all the WoW you want. I have better things to be doing with my life and better games to be playing in my spare time.
I honestly don't know why console fanboys harp on this anti-PC sentiment. I've lost track of how many times Rym and Scott have lambasted PC gaming and World of Warcraft in particular. Since they are ignorant of both (mostly the latter), it is quite understandably frustrating when they make blanket statements to dismiss them, and therefore those people who participate in them. A direct and incendiary insult, the likes of which are common by both Rym and Scott. What, exactly, did WoW players do to you people to make you feel that way? Do I get on and say "the Wii is a waste of time" or "the DS is just a stupid number-moving device"? In all my pro-PC-gaming arguments, have I resorted to bashing the hobby itself, and implying that those who pursue it are "wasting their time" because I don't think their geeky habit is as "cool" as mine?
No, I do not.
And yet, they do. And they continue to do so, as if it's not a big deal. Let's just trivially dismiss people and their hobbies, to prove our superiority. My argument is neither unreasonable nor extraordinary, and yet it is being dismissed as such, because it is not inline with the pro-console dogma.
Hundreds of shows, and this alone upsets me. I think I have the right to be offended, and to complain about it. I'm not saying they have to change, or even acknowledge me. But there it is.
To make a long argument short, WoW is not a good GAME. Everyone points out the social aspects and such, and that's fine, but to pretend that the game itself is a good one is to stand on thin ice. It's a "game" that has one metric of success: time spent playing. The longer you play, the more powerful your character will become. You're not making tactical decisions of any depth, you're not solving nontrivial puzzles, you're not honing some skill: you're investing time in order to make your numbers bigger than other people's numbers.
I hold all gaming to the same standards. These are very high standards. I hate most games. Even if I love a game, I'll deconstruct, analyze, and attack it constantly in order to test it. Settlers of Catan? I loved that game. It was fun, and worth my time. Later, when I had played it enough to understand it as it truly was at its core, I realized that it was a terrible game. It was no longer worth the time to play, since I could play perfectly optimally with zero effort, the end results being entirely random.
As time went on, I was able to deconstruct games with fewer and fewer plays. Now, most new board games are worth at most a single play before both Scott and myself have gleaned everything interesting from them. We've avoided many games entirely due to our understanding of low-level game mechanics.
I see right through World of Warcraft. I understand everything that it is, just as I saw through Settlers, and I see no compelling reason to play it. I can expect no real mental stimulation or challenge.
I understand how other people could like World of Warcraft, just as I understand how someone could like Settlers of Catan as I once did. They're still enjoyable games for a great many people. I, however, have nothing left to gain from them. I got everything WoW had to offer playing The Realm a decade ago.
Would WoW be fun if you were in "autistic mode?" Would it be fun if you ran with only bots? Is the game itself good independent of any social aspects? If you honestly believe that the answer is "yes," then enjoy your game. Otherwise, why not take your social interaction elsewhere? If you're offended that someone has a low opinon of your hobby, that's at best hilarious.
Well, I have to say your ARE pasionate about this topic, but do you hear yourself? Last I checked this wasn't a flame war. You tell all the console fans to STFU and they haven't even insulted you whatsoever... this isn't an insult fight. Please don't turn it into one.
I have respect for those who defend their opinions with facts, not insults.
I guess I'll buy a DS and pick up Pokemon! I can level up my pokemon through battles, and get a whole bunch of them to high level, so that I can enjoy the truly interesting content: battles. After all, the single-player game is fun, but the icing on the cake is the social aspect: you can battle other players. Of course, you pretty much have to wait a few months before everyone has leveled up their pokemon, because it's not as fun to battle until then. Because, you know...the numbers aren't high enough.
Rym, Scott, if yours was the typical perspective on the now ancient MMO-vs-the world debate, where you backed shooters and platformers because of the preference for manual skill, and the lack of numbers as a differentiator, then I'd buy your story. After all, that is one argument that's unlikely to be settled any time soon.
But allow me to let you in on a secret: you've already played WoW, you just don't know it.
In WoW, you level your characters up for two reasons: one, it's fun, and two, there's end-game content that you want to be high-level for. There are raids, many types of PvP, and plenty of crafting that is much easier to accomplish at high-level. That isn't to say that the low- and mid-level PvP and instances aren't fun...they're a blast too. But, having different, more challenging, and more rewarding content at high level gives people incentive to level beyond the simple fun of it.
Just...like...Pokemon.
You are both playing Pokemon right now. You have described the game, on your show, in the terms I described above. It is the same kind of game. Lacking a central server, since it does not need one, it is, in all other ways, an MMO.
I submit that as strong evidence of my point, which is this: WoW is a fun game. You deny this not out of knowledge, since you have not played it, but out of ignorance. You defend your point by holding the game to arbitrary "standards", not realizing that a standard is only a standard if it is agreed upon by the masses. The FPS-vs-MMO war has perpetuated because both hold the other to their arbitrary standards.
Rym, you got me into MMO's with the Realm. You and I both played and enjoyed it. I can objectively say that WoW is a much better game than the Realm, but that's no disservice to Sierra. The Realm, in my opinion, was not surpassed by UO or Everquest; my various MMO experiences were all a pale shadow of my first until WoW. Blizzard very diligently and competently studied the entire genre across its entire history to produce the best game possible, and they succeeded well beyond their wildest predictions.
I know you both. I've known Rym longer than anyone on this forum, including Scott. Almost all the games they discussed, I played, with them (Rym much more so). I missed out on Natural Selection, and I regret that. Of course, I missed out on the whole console scene with them, for reasons that are nobody's fault.
I can respect teasing and taunting and posturing. I will never disagree with someone saying "I don't like this game" or even "this game sucks". But when people try to present "objective" "facts" about something, according to their own arbitrary standards, that really annoys me. I cannot, for the life of me, determine the source of the enmity that fuels their constant criticism of one game that they have NEVER PLAYED.
How can you possibly judge a game you know nothing about? Nothing you read on the internet, watch on YouTube, or even see over a real player's shoulder will give you anything resembling an understanding of this or any game. WoW is an extremely complex game, the most complex game of any kind that I have ever played, with the exception of tabletop Dungeons & Dragons. That's part of the appeal--like all appeal, if it doesn't appeal to you, that's fine, it isn't your game.
Allow me to present an alternate hypothesis:
Rym and Scott have several issues that prevent them from enjoying PC gaming. First, their computers have historically been a little behind. This is far more of a Rym issue, as we are all familiar with. Second, they had great experiences with games in the 90's, followed a gradual lessening of great experiences in the early decade. Why? The types of games we all enjoyed most, Quake and Half-Life style shooters, fell out of favor, and were replaced with variations on the genre we didn't like as much. Battlefield, Enemy Territory, and the various Unreals had less appeal to us. We all loved Tribes 2, and it flopped, and that was just about it for most of us...we stuck with Half-Life 2 mods until they ran out of Steam. (yay a pun)
Faced with the prospect of paying hundreds or thousands of dollars of what should be college expense money to upgrade their PC's, and then only to play games they aren't sure they want to pay $50 for or even waste time on, they found a better solution, in the form of relatively inexpensive Nintendo consoles: the Gamecube, the GBA, and the DS.
Nintendo, independent of all other discussions of the games industry, has a well-deserved reputation for making fun, playable games. I've played and enjoyed Smash Brothers Melee on my Gamecube, and I've experienced the awesomeness that is Phoenix Wright. I haven't been a Zelda fan since Zelda 2, which is one more reason to dismiss everything I say, but it just goes to show people have different tastes.
Rym and Scott rediscovered the pure, simple joy of gaming that was slipping away, that they feared may be going away forever, either because of age or changes in the industry. Either way, they were happy, and enjoyed years of great experiences while PC gaming entered a slump of WWII shooters and recycled RTSs.
As the latest generation of consoles approached, they met the format wars and the wiirdness of the wii with the same caution that everyone else did. But, owning a Wii, they find it to be everything they and Nintendo hoped. Great. I'm glad there's something to derail the arms race that is the Xbox-vs-PS war.
Meanwhile, PC gaming has silently recovered from its recession, and finally come out with some titles that people actually wanted to buy. The Sims 2 is the unsung hero, capturing a market of middle-aged women (among others) years before the Wii aspired to. Then, of course, there's World of Warcraft. 8 million active subscribers paying Blizzard $120 million dollars a month, or $1.44 billion dollars a year, to play one game. That's almost enough to pay for every DS Lite ever sold.
Perhaps, knowing how the games industry sways based on popularity, they are afraid of the effect such a monolithic game might have on the industry. Still hopeful for a bright future of PC gaming, if not actually loyal, they worry that WoW might have the effect that other successful games have, and steer PC gaming into a new, deeper, perhaps final recession of cheap knock-offs trying to be the next WoW. They aren't worried WoW will overtake consoles, nor should they be. But to them, it's symptomatic of the problems of PC gaming.
Unable to blame Blizzard...after all, they're just a corporation out to make money...they instead blame the players. They invent arbitrary standards for gaming, then hold those gamers to them in an effort to prove that their choice of leisure activity is, on some absolute scale, bad. They fail to hold themselves to the same standard. They fail to recognize that all leisure activities are a matter of personal choice, and, unless you're Jack Thompson, nobody's choice of video game hurts anybody else. They fail to realize that they are comparing apples to oranges. They fail to realize that they are trying strenuously to imply that their choice of geekery is innately superior to those of others, in a twisted mockery of the natural male drive for competition.
Thus, their argument is fueled. WoW is their black-faced whipping boy, like certain kinds of anime are to Dave & Joel. It's a safe thing they can make fun of, like the cliques in high school who make fun of the geeks and nerds. It's a natural, weak, and very negative human tendency to bash others to feel better about yourself. When you have an audience, it's done on a larger scale, usually with something that your audience agrees with.
Maybe my hypothesis is right, maybe it's wrong. But it sure explains a lot.
Guys, don't let the fame go to your head. We all came from the same place. Don't be like the other gaming journalists who just dig their trench and lie in it. We don't need another pundit for this or that part of the various rivalries. (At least your DS > PSP argument is based on very real sales figures...you've also given props to the PSP where it was due.)
You have a great podcast, and your game and anime reviews are well-reasoned and based on actual knowledge. You don't need to sully that by supporting biased and ignorant opinions. WoW players, a PC gamers for that matter, are geeks too, and they like the show. Don't alienate them. If you continue to stick to well-reasoned arguments about topics for which you have a lot of knowledge, the show will continue to be good.
Pokemon is buy once, play forever.
WOW is buy once play for as long as you have the money.
Blizzard has also been banning people accounts for selling in game items. Nintendo does not take your game pack away for trading items for cash.
The single player game of Pokemon is basically the same as Earthbound. You like Eartbound? Me too. That's why I also like Pokemon. You play a gigantic single-player Japanese style RPG that happens to allow you to use monsters you capture for the combat. When you beat it, you beat it. The end. The only difference is that after you beat it, you can still walk around the world collecting and training Pokemon to your heart's content. It's worth it to play Pokemon just for the one-time single-player experience. Oh, and see the thread about random encounters to learn why Pokemon is a Japanese style RPG that I can tolerate playing.
The multiplayer of Pokemon is a game of strategy. Level doesn't matter so much in Pokemon. Lower level Pokemon often beat higher level Pokemon. Many of the multiplayer combat modes automatically set everyone's Pokemon to be the same level. The combat is actually strategic. Sure, it's not the deepest strategy in the world, but its at least as deep as Magic: The Gathering. It is, however, better than both M:TG and WoW. Here is why.
In WoW, whoever spends the most time playing is the winner. Sure, someone who knows the game better can get more levels in less time, but that's a matter of knowledge, not skill. If you have two players of equal knowledge, the one who has spent more time playing will win, regardless of skill or strategy.
In M:TG, whoever has the most money to buy the best cards is the winner. They purposefully print fewer copies of the more powerful cards to force this to be true. Sure, you also need strategy to win at Magic, but money is still a significant factor. If you made every Magic card for the same price, or sold a complete set for a low price, it would be perfectly acceptable.
Pokemon is a game almost entirely of strategy with a little knowledge. The knowledge factor is not a problem because you learn it all during the single-player. Sure, it might take some time to acquire the Pokemon you want and teach them the moves you want, but spending more time training doesn't correlate with winning. Also, after you have beaten the single-player game, you are able to train new Pokemon up to battle-level in a matter of minutes. You can even use the day care to level up a Pokemon while you sleep. The key factor in whether you will win a Pokemon battle or not is the strategy you used to construct your team. I think it might even be fair to say that strategy is the only factor.
Pokemon, unlike other RPGs and MMOs is actually two games in one. It is a single-player RPG on the quality level of Earthbound, and its also a strategy game on the level of M:TG. When you combine these two things and tie them together you end up with something really fun. It's fun for a lot of the same reasons that the recently popular Puzzle Quest is fun. You combine classic RPG leveling elements with a requirement of actual skill or strategy, and you get something that is worth playing.
When actual skill and/or strategy enter into the WoW equation, give me a call. I'd also like to mention that I did play WoW for 10 minutes once at a show. I've also, unavoidably, learned a lot about, and watched many people play, the game. My experience has told me that the game is pretty much just hitting monsters to make numbers go up combined with IRC. That being said, I want to let you know that Rym and I both have two WoW 14-day trials each. We plan to use these trials some weekend in the future so that we may add some more walk to our talk. We just have to wait for Rym to get his new computer and for a free weekend. Not likely in con season with great weather, but it just might rain on the one Saturday we have nothing to do.
And for the record, my complaints with WoW are complaints I have against all such games. WoW is clearly the most polished and perfected game in that genre. In other words, it's the shiniest turd. It is no wonder how it has so completely dominated the market and thrown all other MMOs out the crapper. It's so dominant that I barely noticed the release of LotR Online this week. I'm not attempting to single out Wow as the bad guy in any way. The entire genre is bad. Wow is just the most common example because its the only current game that matters. I hold all of these MMOs in equal regard. If you name a game that consists solely of spending time to increase numbers in a database accompanied by an IRC chatroom, I despise that game as much as I do WoW.
Have you ever played Pokemon? Maybe for 10 minutes once? It would be hilarious if I've played more WoW than you've played Pokemon.
I have proposed multiple times a call-in show about this very topic. I thought it would be an excellent choice for a video game day, considering how important (and incendiary) it can be. I have been on multiple sides of this debate, and I know a lot about the subject.
Honor my request. Let's have a real debate, not a shit-slinging contest.
Don't be shit-talkers. Playing 10 minutes is completely irrelevant. You do not know what you are talking about. Let's have a show where we thoroughly discuss the issue. I think we can all be civil.
There is one MMO game that I would be willign to pay a monthly fee for and would knock WoW out of the top spot:
Pokemon the MMOG.
If they took Pokemon and made it into a massive on line game it would break records all over the place!